The Great Controversy

Reply to Athena
It is a common misunderstanding that those who become outlier-level, extremely influencial or successful are also outlier-level "better" or "smarter" than everyone else. The reality is that while these folks indeed work harder than most, are more intelligent, diligent, driven than most etc, there are large numbers who are also at that level, but what makes these household names over-the-top successful is essentially luck. Thus if by some stroke they would not have existed, someone else (typically unknown to most) would have stepped into that void and history would have progressed in a similar fashion.

The latter, obviously. Nothing begins with the conception of a child; it is simply a new shoot on the evolutionary tree. When a human dies, whatever effect that person had on the world continues regardless. But I'm not up for an argument today.

Both. We need a group replicating sameness in its members, and indivuals breaking away from it and introducing new standards in the group. Much like in evolution, its an interplay between replication and mutation that allows for some kind of progression.

Quoting Vera Mont

The latter, obviously. Nothing begins with the conception of a child; it is simply a new shoot on the evolutionary tree. When a human dies, whatever effect that person had on the world continues regardless. But I'm not up for an argument today.

I like the thoughts you expressed. That notion of when we die, whatever effect that we have had on the world continues. That was very important to the original Greek thoughts about education and democracy and the importance of music and always asking "what is the good" and acting on that thought.

Quoting LuckyR

It is a common misunderstanding that those who become outlier-level, extremely influencial or successful are also outlier-level "better" or "smarter" than everyone else. The reality is that while these folks indeed work harder than most, are more intelligent, diligent, driven than most etc, there are large numbers who are also at that level, but what makes these household names over-the-top successful is essentially luck. Thus if by some stroke they would not have existed, someone else (typically unknown to most) would have stepped into that void and history would have progressed in a similar fashion.

That is a good point. I like that, now the TV programming I watch is stressing the truth of what you have said. Again and again, I have watched the stories of scientific discoveries resulting from the unexpected happening, and the experienced scientist realizing the importance of that unexpected information. Often these are people who do not know how to resolve a problem but because they just don't give up, they eventually figure things out. So it is a combination of character, learned knowledge, and good luck!

I am concerned education for technology is not doing enough to nurture the student's character development, relying too much on technological knowledge but minus the important human factors.

Quoting ChatteringMonkey

Both. We need a group replicating sameness in its members, and indivuals breaking away from it and introducing new standards in the group. Much like in evolution, its an interplay between replication and mutation that allows for some kind of progression.

You just put words to a very difficult concept. Very nice! I love your reference to evolution.

This would metaphysically turn on whether determinism is wholly true, constrictively true or not at all true I think.

I go with the former on the information I have which says humans exist without the latter and even a single example trumps the latter imo.

@Athena

Please consider this little ‘analogy’ that hopefully helps one to visualize a very general overview of the situation...
(Or is it a metaphor? Or a simile? :chin: )

You know how on some stereo music players (or ‘boomboxes’) there are separate settings
for bass and for treble?
So with these two knobs, you can have a variety of settings: high bass and high treble, high bass and low treble, low bass and middle treble, etc etc…

This can be compared to the workings of human civilization, in a way…

Let’s imagine a culture or civilization has two main aspects: the individual and the collective.
(Maybe the individual is like the treble, and the community is like the bass?)

Each of these aspects can be working and functioning well, or not so well.
Each of these aspects (individual person and collective community) are both intertwined,
yet one can be functional, while the other is not.
And each of these aspects are extremely important and critical for a fully functioning society.

A culture can have high-functioning ‘individuality’ with much freedom,
or it can have a low-functioning individuality with very little freedom.
Some other qualities of individuality include expression, experimentation, creativity… or a lack thereof.

A culture can have high-functioning ‘community’, with much cooperation and equality,
or can have low-functioning community, with very little cooperation and equality.
Some other qualities of community include stability, communication, tradition… or a lack thereof.

One could imagine an X-Y graph (or Cartesian plane) illustrating this.

And so, as an example…

There could in theory exist a society that had strong community, but was rather repressive when it came to individual rights (or repressive against woman or ‘minorities’).
This brings to mind Communist countries that managed to stay afloat, like China.

Or there could be a society where individual freedoms were numerous, but the social understructure was weak or fractured.
The current USA seems to roughly fall into this category.

These are very broad and general categories, but it helps me view how successful a culture can potentially be.

(TL,DR: Both! lol).

I am concerned education for technology is not doing enough to nurture the student's character development, relying too much on technological knowledge but minus the important human factors.

Reply to Athena

Yes, there has to be a reason that the US trails the rest of the world in educational excellence (by a significant amount) yet leads the world in profitable patents, copyrights and inventions/corporations.

The metaphysics of it all is quite clear: the individual is the basis. The principium individuationis is everything. Each of them occupies her own unique space and time as particular beings that, once they’re gone, will never be seen again. While it may be fruitful to analyze the space between these beings, or to observe how they interact with one another, the loci of our analysis are invariably particular beings and we should never forget it.

Quoting 0 thru 9

These are very broad and general categories, but it helps me view how successful a culture can potentially be.

I am glad I just watched an explanation of a map of life and an explanation of Socrates's cave because that leads to me seeing so much more in your explanation than I would have seen an hour ago, before the philosophy video I just watched. You did a very good job of picturing the concepts and how they work together.

Quoting NOS4A2

The metaphysics of it all is quite clear: the individual is the basis. The principium individuationis is everything. Each of them occupies her own unique space and time as particular beings that, once they’re gone, will never be seen again. While it may be fruitful to analyze the space between these beings, or to observe how they interact with one another, the loci of our analysis are invariably particular beings and we should never forget it.

I don't think I agree with what you said but maybe that is my failure to fully understand your point. I don't imagine myself as separate as I think you are saying, we are separate. I believe in cohorts that tend to define us without us being aware of how our history is shaping us. When we come of age we don't know enough about life to make choices with knowledge of how they will affect us. Especially if we do not attempt to know ourselves as Socrates would have us do. I think most people are reactive like a dog, with little awareness of themselves. Especially because we no longer have liberal education to free us from our chains.

You know the cave? We are all sitting in it together. It takes a lot of work to break those chains and be liberated by the light. But loving our pharaoh and helping build his pyramid could be a wonderful experience, unlike the cave, so I don't know if I am in total agreement with Socrates either. I just don't think the individual is the basis of anything important. Can you explain away my confusion?

Quoting LuckyR

Yes, there has to be a reason that the US trails the rest of the world in educational excellence (by a significant amount) yet leads the world in profitable patents, copyrights and inventions/corporations.

You pose a very interesting question and I feel compelled to chase it down the rabbit hole.

Someone who dropped out of school in the 8th grade, or a 19-year-old, or an immigrant who comes here with nothing can become a successful business person. What we do not seem to know today is, what character and opportunity have to do with this outcome, rather than being a welfare recipient or worse a homeless person unable to meet the basic needs of survival. Our ability to have so much success today, maybe our history of opening up a frontier and the self-sufficient culture we once had. Or I could be a nut case because I am so passionate about what character has to do with everything, and therefore believe our education for technology and leaving moral training to the church has brought us to a crisis.

I am afraid the US is educating its people to be like a third-world country, dependent on outsiders to provide us with industry. Being a total genius does not equal success if the genius must depend on someone else to provide the jobs. My father worked on Apollo and when that program winded down it was a huge crisis for highly specialized neighbors who had to move to find employment. I think technology has given us totally unrealistic expectations of what it can do for us. Sort of like worshipping a false god and greatly increasing social instability and subsequent social problems.

PS. The smart-ass bankers high on coke, who figured out how to greatly increase bank profits and their kickback, by screwing over trusting people, was a national shame. Education must be about more than technology.

Quoting Athena

I am glad I just watched an explanation of a map of life and an explanation of Socrates's cave because that leads to me seeing so much more in your explanation than I would have seen an hour ago, before the philosophy video I just watched. You did a very good job of picturing the concepts and how they work together.

Thanks, and thank you for starting this thread.

What was the “explanation of a map of life” you mentioned?

I would say there's some truth in the first and a good basis on the second. An enlightened individual has an awareness of their own identity -- their way of thinking, their sense of morality and justice, and their own view of the world. There has to be some growth happening within the individual as time passes and as experience accumulates. The have to be changes taking place within the mind regardless of the external influences.

1.

Isaac Kramnick:This Enlightenment self is uninvolved with relationships to others, its critics claim, and is mistakenly held to be the creative center of its world and of meaning. This solitary self is an empty self, unencumbered and unsituated, an autonomous master of its own destiny through self-generated voluntary agency, by which it dominates reality.

2.

Isaac Kramnick:individuals as socially constructed, as never solitary but always involved in social relationships, selves shaped by history, tradition, and aspects of identity that society and social classes construct and over which individuals have little control.

The few individuals in history who we believe had made the world great have been made great because of the narrative that the great historians had written. True, these individuals had sacrificed greatly and made great contributions to the world than the average person, but because the spotlight was focused on them, we forget the others who performed the grunt work.

Quoting Athena

Are we great because of a few great men such as Cyrus the Great, Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Nietzsche, George Washington, or Donald Trump or are we great because we are united and socialized so that together we can imagine and manifest great things?

I don't think it's an either/or. Different situations have different explanations. My own view is that greatness is a poor word. It implies too many other dubious, almost transcendental categories - magnificence, sagacity, meritoriousness, pansophism, etc. I'd prefer to describe significant people and the era they are in.

I think the 'great man view of history' as it is often called is just a convenient way to shorthand our understanding. And the personification of an era is irresistible when we come to telling explanatory narratives. Look at the hold Napoleon still has on parts of Western culture.

Significant figures in history generally rely upon others - supporters and enablers - or upon situations that others have put into play - political instability, a knowledge base, etc. And there are all sort of reasons why a significant figure might resonate and together with others become historically important. A simple by-product of human tribalism is the tendency to project upon leaders or innovators all sorts of magic powers or extraordinary attributes of self-creation and individualism and to celebrate them like demigods. Or even as the incarnation of egregious and preternatural malevolence.

You might imagine, given my handle here, that I would be familiar with this great controversy, but alas I thought I thought I was the lone wolf crying in the wilderness. It is obvious that Caesar needs a whole Empire, Napoleon needs an army, and even Newton stands on the shoulders of giants by his own admission.

One does not need to negate the significance of the individual to acknowledge these things. When one man presses the button to end the world, a cast of thousands will have toiled to prepare the connections, and hundreds will do the bidding of plans drawn up before he got his finger anywhere near the red button of doom. The fantasy of the independent sovereign individual was never more than an adolescent wet dream. Rather, the power of the community cooperating makes things happen and changes the world.

So the question for individuals is always with what they will cooperate. The leaders we currently have are inclined to cooperate with our most primitive instincts and arouse fear and greed, and the doctrine of the isolated mechanical self-interested individual is ideal ground with which to promote these sensations.

Fear that the other is about to rob, to rape you, to take your job your home, and your family makes one feel isolated, and that makes one easily manipulable, because as a social being, isolation is a terrible anxiety inducing state. So one tends to join the nearest army available.

Try not to cooperate with these kind of projects, but with projects that produce affection and welcome everyone that cares to join and work for the community.

Reply to Athena

I would say the latter. The "world-historical individual" only ever wields their great power through the emergent whole.

This is not to say that single individuals cannot wield tremendous influence at global scales. I imagine 20th century history would be quite different if Adolf Hitler had died of a stroke shortly after becoming chancellor for example. But such individuals wield so much influence in virtue of the institutions and systems they sit astride. The "absolute monarch," is both empowered and constrained by their state, shaping it even as it shapes them. They sit at a leverage point where their individual acts can make a lot happen, but they only have this power because that leverage point exists.




Reply to LuckyR

Absolutely. Human ability tends to be on a roughly normal distribution. Wealth tends to follow a power law distribution. Compound returns on capital and the general existence of positive feedback cycles that make the poor poorer and the rich richer inflate small differences into large ones.

Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus

. I imagine 20th century history would be quite different if Adolf Hitler had died of a stroke shortly after becoming chancellor for example.

I can imagine history being very different if he had had a better primary school art teacher.

Quoting unenlightened

I can imagine history being very different if he had had a better primary school art teacher.

Or if he had not served on the Western Front in WWI. Or if the post-war atmosphere in Germany had been less oppressive and resentful. Or, if someone more charismatic stepped up to lead the Nazi party. Or any number of other variables. Arch-villains, like iconic heroes and all those nondescript ordinary people who follow them, are a product of their place, time and circumstance.

Absolutely. Human ability tends to be on a roughly normal distribution. Wealth tends to follow a power law distribution. Compound returns on capital and the general existence of positive feedback cycles that make the poor poorer and the rich richer inflate small differences into large ones.

Reply to Count Timothy von Icarus

Very true, but not quite the topic I addressed. Outlier-level success is neither evenly distributed in the population, nor the purview of the previously rich and famous. Rather it is evenly distributed (since it is ultimately decided by luck) BUT within the (not small) group that has attained excellence (which is slanted towards the advantaged).

Quoting LuckyR

Rather it is evenly distributed (since it is ultimately decided by luck) BUT within the (not small) group that has attained excellence (which is slanted towards the advantaged).

You mean aristocratic generals are more likely to have their statues erected in public squares than the middle-class colonels and captains and lower class corporals and privates who carried out their orders?

Reply to Vera Mont
No I meant that say, Steve Jobs was a bright, driven individual with access to higher education (which makes him distinctly not average), but was in the right place at the right time, thus in his absence a different bright, driven individual (of which there are many) would likely have been lucky enough to have been as successful as he was.

"I feel incredibly lucky to be at exactly the right place in Silicon Valley, at exactly the right time, historically, where this invention (computers) has taken form." Steve Jobs 1995

Reply to LuckyR
Yes, that, too. But also, these big successes don't happen in a vacuum. There is one star on top of a great heap of thinkers and innovators, in charge of a team of builders and makers. The star gets all the attention and rewards, while all his enablers go unnoticed.

Reply to Vera Mont
Again, usually very true, but I'm not addressing the details of success (vs failure), rather that of crazy over the top success (vs plain ol success).

Reply to LuckyR Okay.

Reply to 0 thru 9

Here is a link to a free philosophy course, and the particular lecture that includes a map of reality that is crucial to our understanding of just about everything else. The important explanation is about 10 minutes into the video and takes about 10 minutes to explain. https://online.hillsdale.edu/courses/introduction-to-western-philosophy

Here is a link to making a conceptual map of your life.

https://philosophyasawayoflife.medium.com/concept-map-your-life-to-check-if-you-are-doing-what-is-meaningful-to-you-baebdf6f72b

Quoting Tom Storm

. And the personification of an era is irresistible when we come to telling explanatory narratives.

OMG you have stimulated so many thoughts in my head. :heart: And this one really leaped out at me. Athens like most ancient civilizations created their gods as they realized the need for them. Athena was changed by the war with Persia so that when the Persians destroyed her temple, it was rebuilt with a completely new understanding of the gods. Apolla came at a time of chaos that demanded a system of reason and this is part of the dramatically changed explanation of all the gods. It is really exciting to think of all this with your comment on the personification of an era. The people of Athens were using human-like gods to give life a new explanation. Does that match what you said or have I misunderstood you?

Quoting Tom Storm

A simple by-product of human tribalism is the tendency to project upon leaders or innovators all sorts of magic powers or extraordinary attributes of self-creation and individualism and to celebrate them like demigods. Or even as the incarnation of egregious and preternatural malevolence.

Because of just watching an explanation of Socrates and "the good", your words have me asking "what is the good". The information I am drawn to at this time is how harmful some colleges have become in destroying the notion that we can prove the good as we can prove a triangle is a triangle or define what is beauty. Education in the US has thrown the nation into a period of transition, chaos has taken over and this demands a strong person who can keep us from self-destructing. That underlines your final statement. "Or even as the incarnation of egregious and preternatural malevolence" and plays nicely with your comment about tribalism. We are totally confused and screaming for a great leader who can put an end to this chaos.

I think great leaders ride on a wave that is created by the circumstances of the moment. I think we should be paying more attention to the masses and what is driving them. Why are so many clinging to a tribe, instead of their own comprehension of the good?

Quoting LuckyR

"I feel incredibly lucky to be at exactly the right place in Silicon Valley, at exactly the right time, historically, where this invention (computers) has taken form." Steve Jobs 1995

I like Socrates and Plato and Steve Jobs use the word "form". My mother was a keypunch operator long before we had personal computers. That is she used a machine to put holes in a card, that was then used to give the computer information. That was a very old technology and something really magical happened in Silicon Valley. I am not sure what gave our high-tech society its form but it pleases me to wonder about that.

Reply to Athena

Excellent. Thanks! :smile:

Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus

but they only have this power because that leverage point exists.

Delicious. :heart: What if we had a better understanding of such leverage points? I am coming from LuckyR's quote from Steve Jobs about the "form". There is a very long history behind the development of computers but it was not until recently that our lives are all about computers. It seems like magic how computers have taken over the whole world and might it be helpful if we had a better understanding of leverage points and form better?

How can we govern ourselves wisely when our understanding of reality is so poor?

Quoting Athena

Why are so many clinging to a tribe, instead of their own comprehension of the good?

Perhaps though the question is askew? To many it will make perfect sense to 'cling' to a tribe as that is their notion of a good, and a more powerful one that an abstract 'comprehension'.

In this sense I feel the contrast in the original question is misplaced. If we consider the Scandinavian body politic, for instance, where social democracy remains strong, mutuality is a powerful element in what binds people together. Max Weber is in this respect an interesting figure. He was in one sense a Kantian promulgating the notion of the enlightenment autonomous individual; but his foundational work in establishing sociology as a discipline, and his political beliefs in the benefits of (some kinds of) partisanship place the individual clearly at the nexus of social networks.

Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus

I would say the latter. The "world-historical individual" only ever wields their great power through the emergent whole.

So no pharaoh built a pyramid but the masses built it? I have always had a problem with how we tell history. It presents a totally unrealistic understanding of history.

Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus

leverage point

There is that word again "leverage". how does it come that people are using that word? I am questioning a consciousness shift. Of what I think is happening is happening, that would be very exciting. What if we saw history as something that includes everyone? Would our moral perspective change?

Quoting Athena

I think great leaders ride on a wave that is created by the circumstances of the moment. I think we should be paying more attention to the masses and what is driving them. Why are so many clinging to a tribe, instead of their own comprehension of the good?

Agree. Humans are tribal creatures and understand themselves in relationship with other humans. We borrow from each other, we imitate each other, we value what others value, we value how we are seen by our tribe. Seems pretty natural to me that human value systems reflect the shared values of a community (intersubjective agreement) rather than individual values. When you think of strong communities around the world, they tend to share presuppositions, origin stories, and values. Leaders are often those who know how to tell a compelling story using those presuppositions and values in an exciting way.

Quoting Athena

We are totally confused and screaming for a great leader who can put an end to this chaos.

Or bring a different kind of chaos which looks like order.

I suspect the end of the metanarrative has led us to an atomized culture of chaotic pluralism and divergent values, eroding the idea of a single unified culture (which was probably always a type of myth) which could be led under a unified vision. You can see how 'Make America Great Again' is an appeal to get back to shared presuppositions of a 'golden era' which many seem to fondly recall or imagine to have existed. Great leaders often search for and develop the great story which will bring everyone together.

Reply to Athena

What if we saw history as something that includes everyone? Would our moral perspective change?

Probably not as much as we'd hope. Theories to the effect that history is "caused by everyone," with no one person being particularly important, have been around for a long time. The second epilogue of War and Peace is all about this sort of idea. And more recently there have been histories with a focus on marginalized groups, etc.

Perhaps they just need to get out to more people, but I'm not convinced they're bound to have much of a moral impact. To my mind, the problem is this: if we're all equally important to history, then we're all equally irrelevant as well and equally not responsible for what transpires. We each end up with a 1/8 billionth share responsibility in world history.

Plus, it seems hard to justify such explanations in some cases, where it does seem like individuals have a large amount control over historical moments. The most obvious case is that of the leaders of centralized autocracies. It certainly seems that, had Hitler indefinitely suspended plans to invade Poland, World War II as we know it would not have begun in Europe.

However, this ability of some individuals to have an outsized role in the course of historical events is instructive for "every day people," as well. Gavrilo Princip happened to be positioned to change history when he shot Archduke Franz Ferdinand. Mohamed Bouazizi's self immolation likewise set off a cascade of world shaping events in the form of the Arab Spring.

Might World War I and the Arab Spring have happened otherwise? Prehaps, but there are plenty of examples of "explosions waiting to happen," that defuse themselves without ever resulting in a crisis (e.g., the Cold War). One way to think of contingency in history is to think in terms of the stability of some historical trajectory instead of thinking in terms of causation. Some trajectories seem more resilient to change than others. History is too messy for straightforward casal analysis of the sort we use for bowling balls. Analogies to complex feedback systems with tipping points seem to work better.

But I think this also speaks to the moral value of every person. I find a lot to like in the "big picture" historical thinking of Hegel and his followers, but it also seems to miss to influence of the particular individual.

Quoting mcdoodle

Perhaps though the question is askew? To many it will make perfect sense to 'cling' to a tribe as that is their notion of a good, and a more powerful one that an abstract 'comprehension'.

In this sense I feel the contrast in the original question is misplaced. If we consider the Scandinavian body politic, for instance, where social democracy remains strong, mutuality is a powerful element in what binds people together. Max Weber is in this respect an interesting figure. He was in one sense a Kantian promulgating the notion of the enlightenment autonomous individual; but his foundational work in establishing sociology as a discipline, and his political beliefs in the benefits of (some kinds of) partisanship place the individual clearly at the nexus of social networks.

What is happening in the US right now causes me to fear mob psychology and a lack of independent reasoning.

My original question begins with not knowing enough about the Enlightenment and why it would stress the individual separate from relationships with others. Our entrance into the Industrial Age was brutal. Applying Darwinism to humans and justifying the exploitation of the lower class is becoming unacceptable to a growing number of people. I think science is moving us in the direction of better social justice but I have concerns about how this works out economically.

I wish I could experience Scandinavia. I have good stories of how well it is meeting human needs, but I do not enough about how that works. I came across some information that schools are transmitting a culture of neighbors taking care of neighbors. This might be contrasted to the competitive education in the US, leaving some neighbors to throw the other under the train if that is what it takes to get ahead. Culture is always on my mind. How we feel about things and each other is very important to our spirit and our decisions.

Quoting Vaskane

I'm not quite sure how Nietzsche is lumped into the prior when he himself discusses the latter.

His Superman is not exactly my idea of a good neighbor. I do not agree with Nietzche about other animals not having morality. I do not think other animals contemplate right from wrong, but all social animals must consider others because social animals depend on each other for survival.

Interestingly the Puritans had an interesting notion of God choosing people and those who are chosen seem very much to me like Nietzche's Superman.

Quoting Christine Leigh Heyrman

But Calvin also taught that God, in his infinite mercy, would spare a small number of "elect" individuals from the fate of eternal hellfire that all mankind, owing to their corrupt natures, justly deserved. That elect group of "saints" would be blessed, at some point in their lives, by a profound sense of inner assurance that they possessed God's "saving grace." This dawning of hope was the experience of conversion, which might come upon individuals suddenly or gradually, in their earliest youth or even in the moments before death. It is important to emphasize to students that, in the Calvinist scheme, God decided who would be saved or damned before the beginning of history--and that this decision would not be affected by how human beings behaved during their lives. The God of Calvin (and the Puritans) did not give "extra credit"--nor, indeed, any credit--for the good works that men and women performed during their lives.

That does not go well with some people's understanding of social justice.

I am very glad Socrates insisted he did not know because I sure do not know and hope to learn from the discussion. I am seeing different notions of superiority and I question if they are justified.

Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus

However, this ability of some individuals to have an outsized role in the course of historical events is instructive for "every day people," as well. Gavrilo Princip happened to be positioned to change history when he shot Archduke Franz Ferdinand. Mohamed Bouazizi's self immolation likewise set off a cascade of world shaping events in the form of the Arab Spring.

The old flap of a butterfly's wing creating a hurricane. The human world is a chaotic system of unrivalled complexity, and there are unknowable moments when one life can have a large effect, and sometimes all too knowable periods when one life is caught in an inescapable flow. Who knows, but I might meet a future Gavrilo on the street today, and just a friendly smile divert him from the path of destruction? For certain every mover and shaker needed to suckle and have their diaper changed before they rocked the world.

Reply to Vaskane That is a lot of reading. It is very interesting but I am a mother and have a radically different point of view. I think Genghis Khan was a fascinating person too but I would not want to be one of his wives. When I read all of Nietzche's blustering, my opinion of males crashes and I have to work at remembering men can be good for some things and they are not all complete jerks. :lol: One of my favorite professors told me I am castrating bitch, and forgive me, but I do have my reasoning for this. Boudicca was also a bitch to the Romans as she fought for her people.

I am doing my best to own up to how feelings are affecting my reasoning. Neitzche brings out the warrior in me.

In the talk of "The Greatest Utility of Polytheism", I immediately thought of the polytheist Greeks and their ideals. Spartans and Athenians had very different ideals but held one in common- loyalty to their city-state and fellow citizens. To whom is Neitzsche loyal?

On the wall above my computer desk is a list of virtues. I wonder how many of them Nietzsche would value? There was a time when we thought of virtues as strengths, and I have often been accused of being condescending because when I am acting on a virtue I don't question myself. I can be as self-centered and oblivious of the needs of others as Neitzche because I am being virtuous and that is all that matters, not how others feel and what they need does not matter. That may not be a good character trait. Something may be missing?

Maybe I just read Nietzsche all wrong but as a woman who was left alone in a harsh environment with children to keep alive, I question some male values that underestimate the value of putting others first. :lol: When I enter a courtroom or the Social Security Office and the security guard asks me if I have a weapon, I say "only my tongue". But I take no pride in being mouthy. I rather be known for having good reasoning, so if you can argue against my different point of view, that would be pleasing. Why would we value the opinion of a man who appears to have a severe emotional/social problem? How does Neitzche benefit the whole of society?

Quoting Nietzsche, The Antichrist

[12] Matthew v, 34.

The life of the Saviour was simply a carrying out of this way of life

Huh? The world was full of people who thought they were spiritual beings along with all of life being animated by spirit. The Egyptians had a trinity of the soul. When a person died that was part of the soul. The next part was judged and may or may not go into the afterlife and the final part of the soul always returned to the source. This is more in line with Hinduism, from one come the many.

Believing we are separate from the source might be problematic? The bible explanation of this is unbelievable. I like the story of Pandora and the Box better than the story of Adam and Eve, which is a plagiarized Sumerian story of many gods. Zeus was afraid that with the technology of fire, man would discover all the other technologies and turn their backs on the gods. Zeus was right.:grin:

Reply to Athena

I don't understand the "controversy." Some individuals may be considered "great." Clearly, it doesn't follow from this that "we" are "great." Neither does the fact that "we" are great mean that each of us are "great."

Quoting Athena

Neitzche brings out the warrior in me.

A few quick comments. I see in Nietzsche the ancient and transcultural theme of the politics of the soul. In Zarathustra he says:

But the worst enemy you can meet will always be yourself ...

(I. 17: The Way of the Creator)

In section 10: "War and Warriors", Zarathustra says:

BY OUR best enemies we do not want to be spared, nor by those either whom we love from the very heart. So let me tell you the truth!

My brethren in war! I love you from the very heart. I am, and was ever, your counterpart. And I am also your best enemy.

Your enemy shall ye seek; your war shall ye wage, and for the sake of your thoughts!

Quoting Athena

Maybe I just read Nietzsche all wrong but as a woman who was left alone in a harsh environment with children to keep alive, I question some male values that underestimate the value of putting others first.

With regard to questioning the values that others might impose on you, I think you read Nietzsche correctly.

With regard to others: I assume that it is not all others but those who are yours, of you, those who are your children.

As you say:

Quoting Athena

I can be as self-centered and oblivious of the needs of others as Nietzsche...

but it would be wrong the conclude that Nietzsche was oblivious to the needs of others.

Zarathustra answered: "I love mankind."

(Prologue, 2)

Quoting Athena

How does Neitzche benefit the whole of society?

I tend to agree that Nietzsche's often blustering, histrionic style is tedious and nothing I’ve read of his work is of use to me personally. Feel free to ignore him.

Reply to unenlightened

Who knows, but I might meet a future Gavrilo on the street today, and just a friendly smile divert him from the path of destruction? For certain every mover and shaker needed to suckle and have their diaper changed before they rocked the world.

No doubt, although they might hate to be reminded of it. Anyone who forgets this ends up emotionally stunted.

A way forward in moderating the Hegelian focus on the general and over-preferencing the organic whole above the individual might be Von Balthazar's concept of "Theodrama." That is, I can see an argument for drama as the proper analogy for the historical. The plot only hangs together as a whole, and yet each role is crucial.

Sometimes we are the chorus, sometimes we take center stage. Yet every role is important; what is Greek drama without the chorus? Something far less surely. What is a play without its audience, and don't the actors watch from back stage as well?

Actors rise to roles of prominence and are then retired. She who plays Napoleon today might be in the chorus next week, or perhaps a side part, Diocletian tending his cabbages.

An actor must draw the energy for playing their role from something essential to their deepest, inner self. Thus, they need to be in contact with that self through contemplation. Self-actualization, authenticity, these do not preclude stepping into world historical roles (one need only think of Dogen, Rumi, Saint Ambrose, etc.). Rather, it means owning the roles we step into (not unlike Hegel's conception of positive freedom through accepting duty).

Elsewise, we end up wearing our roles and masks like shackles. They aren't things we slip into in order to partake in the grand drama of history — something empowering — but rather a prison of sorts. Hegel, and thus philosophy of history more generally, has suffered from being too focused on the inevitability of certain trends to focus on the need for the individual to own their role, to ride the course of history (maybe even to tame it). Your Jungs, Mertons, and Nietzsches, though very different, share a flaw in not looking to the general course of the gyre of human events, missing the tree's role in the forest.

Reply to Athena

Why would we value the opinion of a man who appears to have a severe emotional/social problem? How does Neitzche benefit the whole of society?

It might be even more apt to ask how a collection of Nietzsche's ideal souls avoids stepping on each other's freedom? There is much to like in Nietzsche's lyricism, but the lack of any deep conception of social freedom, i.e., how individuals are essential to empowering each other's freedom, always struck me.

You see this in those Nietzsche inspired as well. There are no children in Ayn Rand novels. The question of: "how does one become educated and developed enough to partake in this overcoming, to even understand it," seems to be missing.

Partly, I think this goes back to a misunderstanding of Plato that crops up in the "masters of suspicion," e.g. Hume and Nietzsche. Nietzsche certainly allows that freedom is important. He also certainty rejects Plato's view of why reason is key to freedom (i.e. that only it can unify the disordered "parts of the soul" and master circumstance). However, one can't really be sure if Nietzsche actually understood Plato's argument. Certainly he seems to miss its more sophisticated formulations by the Patristics, whose focus on self-mastery/unity is caricatured into "slave morality." He tilts at a lot of strawmen.

Reply to Tom Storm
I tend to agree with Kaufman that Nietzsche is best as a diagnostician. He finds problems better than solutions. Even if he doesn't seem to understand Hegel and Kant very well (particularly the latter), this doesn't really matter. He's an antidote to an overly cerebral focus on the general. Are there perhaps better formulations of this solution? Personalism seems to have a lot to offer here.

I do think Plato and Hegel actually understood this need; it comes out in their more mystical work, but it's easy to miss it. Especially in Hegel, he's a terrible writer. Nietzsche is actually fun to read, even if you have to sometimes wince at him. Being bold has its costs. Even people who get Nietzsche very wrong get something of what he is saying. People who even manage to get folks like Hegel or Whitehead right still end up with a muddle.

Quoting Tom Storm

suspect the end of the metanarrative has led us to an atomized culture of chaotic pluralism and divergent values, eroding the idea of a single unified culture (which was probably always a type of myth) which could be led under a unified vision. You can see how 'Make America Great Again' is an appeal to get back to shared presuppositions of a 'golden era' which many seem to fondly recall or imagine to have existed. Great leaders often search for and develop the great story which will bring everyone together.

I think the "Great Story" was the strong emotions during a time of war and the end of that war. My mother sang for USO shows and my father served in Germany and their patriotism was very much a part of their lives. My mother was so hurt when people started protesting against the Vietnam war. She asked how these people could turn against our own nation. Whereas, I had a boyfriend who was determined to be a police officer so he could avoid the draft and later when we learned we had been lied to, well, who would not want to return to a time when we thought we were the best nation that ever was. Different generations, different emotional experiences and I can certainly see how powerful it is to talk of being Great again. That is all about emotions, not facts and reasoning.

However, I do think the US had/has some greatness that made it a deserving world leader. That would be a very complicated discussion with ups and downs and changing points of view. I rather put a discussion about that in a thread about "democracy" where everyone understood the subject is "democracy" NOT the US and not a political discussion. Democracy was a new social order and that is a different subject.

When we entered the world wars we believed our defense depended on patriotic citizens and education was the strongest institution for preparing us for war. That national defense education was totally different from education for technology and depending on technology for national defense. I want to talk about Jefferson and education and defending our democracy but that is loosely related to this thread's topic and I am out of time.

Reply to Vaskane

I don't see what your reply has to do with my point, re advice on how the particular person should live versus how society gets on as a whole.

You seem to be spoiling for an argument. Might I ask how many other philosophers you've studied? The difference between philosophers who focus largely on the collective versus Nietzsche's much more individualist ethos is not really a point of controversy.

Second, if you want to meaningfully engage with people, it would be helpful to know what it is exactly that you're contesting, rather then dropping long block quotes.

For example, what does BG&E 45 and 188 say to you about how public education, positive freedom from poverty, etc. are provided such that individuals can engage in self-development? How does the malnourished urban worker who cannot read and has been working 12 hour shifts in a factory since they were a child attend to "virtue, art, music, dancing, reason, [and] spirituality?" How should we expect such a person to engage in the revaluation of all values or even to have the time and wherewithal to be reading anything on such an endeavour? Essentially, how do they become the pumped up ego of BG&E #9?

This, I would argue, is an important thing to grapple with because there are obvious ways in which our freedom is affected by the freedom of those we share society with. For example, the patrician practicing "patrician morality," is actually only so free to revalue all their values. In a top down society based heavily on slave labor, the master is not free to lift their boot lest they be overthrown and cast down to the ranks of the slaves (or the dead). A "self-determining" morality ends up being heavily determined by that which lies outside itself unless it is adopted widely, we all face constrains, some much more than others.

We get some consideration of this, but it's mostly critique, not solution (BG&E 200, Gay Science 338). Funny enough, for all the invective against Kant, these are largely arguments against treating the poor as means, as utility machines to be satiried. From a policy standpoint, "just learn to overcome," seems incredibly naive. People won't do it. Not in the aggregate. And even more, no matter how self-determining you think you are, you too will be constrained by this unequal development. The people in the rich walled neighborhoods of Latin America must still hide behind their walls, flinching from the favelas, etc.

Reply to Vaskane

I will just note that all the cases of overcoming you mention are about (extremely rare) individuals overcoming barriers to self-actualization. This doesn't address the problem of how living in a society built around servant - master relations and resentment compromises both the servants and the masters' freedom (i.e. Saint Augustine on "commonwealth's" in the City of God, Hegel on the lord-bondsman dialectical in the Phenomenology). The social whole can never turn towards a holistic revaluation because certain values are essential in anchoring the master's status as master. The individual master is not free to dispense with them without becoming a servant, and thus becoming subject to all the constraints on their freedom that servants face.

You see this in the clash between the liberal ideals of a good portion of the US upper classes, their faith in rational technocracy and desire to see the empowerment of all individuals, versus their existential fear of falling off the top rungs of the ladder into the masses below. They are unable to actually embrace the policies they idealize because to disarm first is to risk simply becoming a servant. In this way, they are not truly free to reshape the values that define their lives. Hence why wealthy liberal enclaves will still have vociferous Not In My Back Yard NIMBYism, refuse to build high density housing, refuse to integrate school districts across arbitrary borders, etc.

This is the problem of social freedom, to borrow Axel Honneth's typology:

Negative Freedom is defined by a subject’s freedom relative to the external world. It is freedom from external barriers that restrict one’s ability to act, e.g., the government or thieves seizing your tools so that you cannot work.

Reflexive Freedom is defined by subject’s freedom relative to themselves. “Individuals are free if their actions are solely guided by their own intentions.” Thus, “man is a free being [when he] is in a position not to let himself be determined by natural drives [or circumstance].” i.e., when his actions are not subject to contingency. Other philosophers have also noted that authenticity, and thus the free space and guidance needed for us to discover our authentic selves, is another component of reflexive freedom.

Social Freedom is required because reflexive freedom only looks inward; it does not tie individual choices to any objective moral code. This being the case, an individual possessing such freedom may still choose to deprive others of their freedom.

Since individuals will invariably have conflicting goals, there is no guarantee that anyone will be able to achieve such a self-directed way of life. Negative freedom is also contradictory because “the rational [reflexive] can come on the scene only as a restriction on [negative] freedom.” E.g., being free to become a doctor means being free to choose restrictions on one’s actions because that role entails certain duties.

Ignoring a lack of social freedom doesn't make it go away. The aristocrat isn't truly the standard of by which good and bad is judged so long as they are forever constricted in their options by such social pressures. So, to an example Nietzsche returns to often, ancient Athens, there we see an endless cycle of social wars, the lower classes rising up to depose an aristocracy or vice versa. Even a great figure like Solon, given a historical chance to reshape his culture's values, faced constraint to his freedom on all sides from the rifts between Athen's classes. And of course, a cycle that leads to periods of violent dictatorships on a regular basis (aristocratic or popular), has the effect of constraining freedom as well.

Reply to Vaskane I find what you said agreeable. I was never out to prove a point. I just thought the subject would be interesting.

I think we can agree HIS STORY gave the impression that one man led and the rest followed. That is just too simple and perhaps not the best explanation of reality. I lean towards sociology and that we all play a part in history. Some leaders bring out the best in us and some bring out the worst in us and some are just ignored.

When it comes to Nietzsche I think he had a few million followers who never read a thing he said. Some of his ideas were picked up and carried completely out of context and this was very much part of the Nazi period with all its violence and finally war.

Reply to Tom Storm Reply to Tom Storm



A simple by-product of human tribalism is the tendency to project upon leaders or innovators all sorts of magic powers or extraordinary attributes of self-creation and individualism and to celebrate them like demigods. Or even as the incarnation of egregious and preternatural malevolence.
— Tom Storm

Quoting Ciceronianus

I don't understand the "controversy." Some individuals may be considered "great." Clearly, it doesn't follow from this that "we" are "great." Neither does the fact that "we" are great mean that each of us are "great."

That was a nice play on the meaning of greatness.

For me, the subject is just something to think about because in the process of thinking the small thought grows, like a piece of bubble gum gets bigger when our saliva blends with it. Then as we chew on it it gets smaller again. Hopefully, we find a small peppercorn of truth that is worth our effort. I am just totally amazed by what happens to our thinking when we share our thoughts. I think this is what Jefferson and Cicero, meant by "the pursuit of happiness" that began in China, India, and Greece 2,500 years ago.

Reply to Fooloso4 What do you like about that talk of enemies and war? Maybe this subject deserves another thread? I see value in Sun Tzu's "The Art of War" and Daniele Bolelli's "On the Warrior's Path" and Roman soldiers in their short, metal, and leather uniforms are a real turn on, but I just don't resonate with Neitschz. You know when you pick up a book it is an unpleasant chore to read, instead of a pleasure.

Strange how we react differently to different subjects and authors, but I am unaware of any woman who likes Nietzsche. I think there is something about being male that makes Nietzsche attractive?

Quoting Vaskane

I apologize for getting defensive over Nietzsche's works. I'm high functioning on the spectrum. High

No problem at all. It is an honor to converse with someone who is well-informed and my goodness you brought some very interesting concepts into this discussion!

With that information, I can see there is so much more to explore and I am drowning in books not knowing which one I want to focus on, but the information about Jews is very exciting!!! Like I need one more thing to think about. :chin: Even though I think the mythology of the God of Abraham is one of the worst things to happen to humanity, I almost worship Daniel Kahneman. "Daniel Kahneman is an Israeli-American author, psychologist and economist notable for his work on hedonic psychology, psychology of judgment and decision-making. He is also known for his work in behavioral economics, for which he was awarded the 2002 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences. Wikipedia"

Makes me want to dig deeper into the religion and search for what has inspired these men. While the intellectual history of Germany is also very impressive. What a petri dish of great thinking! Oh dear, too many thoughts. When the Hebrews transitioned from nomadic herders to farmers it was a moral crisis. No longer did they share everything in common. Property ownership became vital and that led to a war god when those with the most powerful god won the wars. And here you come with "God is dead"! :gasp:

How about sitting in a large mountain cabin with a spread of food and trying to unravel all of this? My head is swimming in thoughts!

I love the mention of projecting ourselves into others. :starstruck: Back to Socrates and the cave and determining what is real. Back to Nietzsche, how do we know our enemy? Are we sure we are not projecting ourselves into the "enemy"?

Isaac Kramnick:Postmodernists, feminists, and certain strands of communitarian thought reject in general what they take to be the Enlightenment's inadequate conception of selfhood and individuality

I found this very interesting to read because I tend to think the opposite. Usually I associate "communitarian thought" with the Enlightenment.

Even though it doesn't seem like it at face value, all these currents of thought aim to reconstruct the world. And to do it, they ultimately place the individual as the spearhead of change.
Maybe not postmodernism, which maybe is more like a simply de-constructive current? But feminism and "communitarian thought" seek to de-construct what they see as wrong and replace it with what they see is right, which happens to be individualized (feminists prefer the individualizing characteristic of "female", while the other prefers the characteristic of "being able to organize the community")

That's precisely what the libertarians reject in the Enlightenment, to turn it around for a second here. If an individual is preferred, that hurts the liberties of certain other individuals.

Is this so? Any thoughts?

Quoting Athena

What do you like about that talk of enemies and war?

In general I do not like talk of enemies and war, but like it or not talk of enemies and war are at the root of our culture and history.

Nietzsche uses a language and ideology intended for other purposes and turns it against itself. The struggle is turned inward. It becomes a matter of self-knowledge.

Nietzsche takes an exhortation from the Greek poet Pindar:

Become who you are.

To know and to be who you are is a struggle. It takes honesty. We too easily lie to ourselves about ourselves. And honesty takes courage. The warrior's virtue.

To become who you are requires becoming an enemy to that which you come to hate about yourself. Nietzsche uses the analogy of the art of the sculpturer who, unlike the painter who adds to a blank canvas, removes all that is extraneous, superfluous, and false.

Quoting Fooloso4

Nietzsche takes an exhortation from the Greek poet Pindar:

Become who you are.

To know and to be who you are is a struggle. It takes honesty. We too easily lie to ourselves about ourselves. And honesty takes courage. The warrior's virtue.

To become who you are requires becoming an enemy to that which you come to hate about yourself. Nietzsche uses the analogy of the art of the sculpturer who, unlike the painter who adds to a blank canvas, removes all that is extraneous, superfluous, and false.

Now that is something to talk about. Shall we begin with why a mother must hate herself and how this is going to help her?

I am 77 years old and most of my time is spent with older people. Some of us agree that we are just beginning to get things figured out. None of us want to go back to the mentality we had when we were young and I don't think I want to go back to a time before computers and the internet. The people I know are not into the forums but I think on-line forums are the most important part of my life right now. How is a younger person or a person without modern communication technology supposed to know much of anything? What history should they know to have perspective? How do the young go about knowing who they are before they have the life experience that is essential to knowing?

I am all in favor of virtues but really war? Do you think war makes a man a better husband and father? How does war benefit women and children? Hum, I think we need a thread to get deeply into the value of war and being a warrior to question why it has been so much a part of our history. How about mountain climbing? I think there is value in putting our lives on the line, but maybe we want to do this in a way that is not destructive? It might even be said, it takes more courage to face life than run up a hill with a machine gun while bullets are flying everywhere.

Thank you for pushing the subject. I need to know more about the virtues of a warrior before I say more so I picked up a book and it is exactly what I need to read to a man who has been bedridden for months because of a stroke. He has given up and somehow I have to reach his spirit that can turn him around because the process of decline and death is very slow. Warning, if a person is not willing to fight for his/her life make sure there is a "Do Not Resuscitate" request registered because if a person does not have that, everything will be done to keep the person alive and living may mean being bed ridden and completely incapable of caring for oneself and living out the rest of life without the ability to communicate. I don't think my friend would have chosen to live if he knew what he knows now. Anyway, what I read in the book tonight might help. But so far, nothing I read will help a mother be a better mother and so that mentality may not serve the whole of society.

Quoting Athena

Shall we begin with why a mother must hate herself and how this is going to help her?

A mother hating herself and a mother hating something about herself are not the same. The latter is a practice of love, the former need not be. If it is, it is misdirected. I am not a mother, but I was "Mr. Mom" back when this was either a joke or something seen as suspicious or wrong. To borrow a phrase from Thoreau, as the artist of my own life, the form it has taken is not something foreseen or foreknown.

Quoting Athena

How do the young go about knowing who they are before they have the life experience that is essential to knowing?

The potential therein contains the beauty and comedy of youth, but also the potential for tragedy. Whether it be one or the other is a great but often overlooked theme of philosophy.

Quoting Athena

Do you think war makes a man a better husband and father?

This, at least in part, depends on what one is battling against, but in the most common usage of the term, for most I do not think it does and often just the opposite. "The Things They Carried", by Tim O'Brien is a book about war that might speak to you. It is a short book about war and what those who go to war carry to and from it, written by someone who does not like war.

Quoting Athena

Warning, if a person is not willing to fight for his/her life make sure there is a "Do Not Resuscitate" request registered because if a person does not have that, everything will be done to keep the person alive and living may mean being bed ridden and completely incapable of caring for oneself and living out the rest of life without the ability to communicate.

A living will is an important document. It is one thing to fight for life, but in some circumstances one should not have to fight to die.

Quoting Fooloso4

A mother hating herself and a mother hating something about herself are not the same. The latter is a practice of love, the former need not be. If it is, it is misdirected. I am not a mother, but I was "Mr. Mom" back when this was either a joke or something seen as suspicious or wrong. To borrow a phrase from Thoreau, as the artist of my own life, the form it has taken is not something foreseen or foreknown.

That is an interesting distinction. I never thought of that before.

I don't know if I understand the form that life has taken is something unforeseen, but I remember a few times I was totally surprised by a turn my life had taken. And here is a problem I have with Neitzche. I don't think we should look inside to determine who we are. Number one, in our younger years, we don't know enough about life to know if we are fish or fowl. We need to experience life to learn what turns us on and what infuriates us. A coach or a teacher can make a huge difference in how we see our potential.

For darn sure women's lib changed my experience of being a woman. I crashed from being a Mother Goddess to "just a housewife". It is not all about what we were born with. How we were parented, and the station of life we were born into, and the period of history we were born into affect our knowledge of life and ourselves.

Very important to me is how the child is educated. A child who does not learn how to have good moral judgment, and does not learn of virtues and principles is not a well-educated human.

Pray tell, what is to be learned by looking inward?

Quoting Athena

I don't know if I understand the form that life has taken is something unforeseen ...

Perhaps for some their life unfolds in predictable ways, either by their own choice or that of others, but when you say that you were totally surprised by a turn your life had taken, this is something unforeseen. So too, what someone will experience, having a coach or teacher influence us, and how they will influence us was unforeseen.

Quoting Athena

Number one, in our younger years, we don't know enough about life to know if we are fish or fowl.

I do not think we are clay to be molded by experience to become whatever we will become. Influence flows in both directions. What we experience plays a role in shaping us, but we are born with particular propensities that play a role in how we experience things, which in turn plays a role in how these propensities develop.

Who we are shapes who we become, and who we become determines who we are. This is the process of becoming. At best we become true to ourselves at our best. Traditionally western philosophy gives priority to being. Nietzsche rejects the idea of fixed natures in favor becoming, of possibilities. of potential.

Quoting Athena

Pray tell, what is to be learned by looking inward?

How can we tell what is to be learned by looking inward unless we look inward?

Quoting Fooloso4

I am not a mother, but I was "Mr. Mom" back when this was either a joke or something seen as suspicious or wrong.

Quoting Athena

For darn sure women's lib changed my experience of being a woman. I crashed from being a Mother Goddess to "just a housewife".

I supported Womens' Lib and that resulted in me becoming "Mr. Mom" - a single parent - for a while. But life moved on in unexpected but welcome ways.

Don't look back. Something might be gaining on you.

Quoting Fooloso4

How can we tell what is to be learned by looking inward unless we look inward?

I said we start life as empty bases and living is about filling ourselves with knowledge. What do you think is inside us that we need to be aware of? I know Socrates said something about needing to know ourselves, but you are making me think about this. I feel pretty strongly that most of what has benefitted me has come from the outside, not the inside. On the other hand, I also wish my mother had been self-aware. So this really is a question about what we are shooting for.

Not all cultures emphasize the individual. Being a member of the tribe is more important than individuality in some tribes. I imagine myself working on a pyramid in Egypt and doing so with love for the pharaoh and being a part of something that involves everyone. I can think of myself in other primitive situations where just the challenge of surviving gets all my attention. Or there is the Buddhist bent of being egoless. I think of death and being one with the universe. What is that separates us from God/the universe, but our illusion of being separate?

This is a moment to surprise. I thought I knew what I thought but I am not at all sure I do know what I think. :chin:

Quoting jgill

I supported Womens' Lib and that resulted in me becoming "Mr. Mom" - a single parent - for a while. But life moved on in unexpected but welcome ways.

I am not sure the male experience of being Mom is the same as the female experience. That would be really hard because when women stayed home they visited each other and supported each other, and a male didn't have that kind of support. I would like to hear from both of you what it felt like to be Mom. My son also became a single parent.

I want to fall back on Confucious and the notion that strong families make the nation strong. This is another way of thinking about the opening question. "Are we great because of a few great men such as Cyrus the Great, Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Nietzsche, George Washington, or Donald Trump or are we great because we are united and socialized so that together we can imagine and manifest great things?"

Quoting Athena

What do you think is inside us that we need to be aware of?

As I see it, it is more of a question of the particular person. It is connected to the Socratic claim about the examined life. What I need to be aware of may not be what you need to be aware of.

Quoting Athena

I feel pretty strongly that most of what has benefitted me has come from the outside, not the inside.

Suppose two people grew up in the controlled environment where everything that happens to one happens to the other. In one sense their experience would be the same, but because they are different people I think their experience would be different in significant ways. Experience is not simply what happens to us, but how we react and respond.

Quoting Athena

Not all cultures emphasize the individual.

True. The most important consequence of modern liberalism, for better and for worse, might be to reorient us around the individual. Some take this so far that they reject the notion of a common good. For them the rights of the individual stands at the center.

Quoting Athena

This is a moment to surprise. I thought I knew what I thought but I am not at all sure I do know what I think.

From a young age I rejected the idea that we should start writing with an outline. For me writing is a way of thinking.

Quoting dani

Is this so? Any thoughts?

Speaking only to the earlier portion, as i'm actually not too up the relationship between Libertarianism and other identitarian pursuits:|

Huh. My experience of basically the entirety of deconstructionist thought has been that it replaces the individual per se with the individual qua group /membership/s and in varying proportions.

This seems to actually be borne out in the what they 'think is right'. Broadly speaking, it tends to be large-scale either action or reaction in the spirit of some or other group usually with legislative change in mind - I recognize that there's obviously an individual effort involved for each person pertaining to the group to which they belong and are, at any time, acting in light of, but the defining feature of that action or decision's significance in terms of its socio-political nature seems the motivating factor. There's no motivation for an individual to become 'liberated'.

What's the weird slogan being thrown around? No freedom til were all free or something or other.

Reply to AmadeusD
Thanks for your reply, yes, I agree with you! I think our points are compatible.

While a deconstructionist may have 'the group' in mind, it is still an individualized group that follows 'what they think is right,' as you put it. And while there's no motivation for an individual to become liberated, there's no push-back against having one individual represent the group.

I think I might be giving myself too much leeway with the term 'individual,' though.
What I'm saying isn't that there's more focus on each individual, in deconstructionist movements, but that there is more importance given to individualization. So that would be why I always associated those movements with the Enlightenment... Another reason could be the 'deconstruction' of a higher force (God, religion, etc) which accompanied the Enlightenment and colors the deconstructionist movements, imo :chin:

Quoting Vaskane

Which ties back into 143 from the Joyful wisdom with creating your own ideal, and the greatest utility of polytheism, a warrior fights for their ideal due to it being the transfiguring and redeeming aspect that lifts them out of the abyss of nihilism.

Dear Vaskane, you push me to seek knowledge that pleases me in every way. I am quite sure the Greeks were familiar with Egyptian gods and modeled their own gods after the Egyptian gods. I also believe the Sumerian gods and stories influenced the consciousness of the whole region. The Greek story of Pandora and the box paralleling the story of Adam and Eve which is a plagiarized Sumerian story of the creation of man. But I like the Greek version much better. Anyway- I found a delightful explanation of the Egyptian and Greek gods. https://philarchive.org/archive/MULTGO-13#:~:text=He%20remarks%3A%20'In%20Egyptian%2C,by%20the%20ancient%20Egyptian%20myths.

Gods were forces of nature and they balanced each other. Especially the Egyptians and Aztecs had powerful rulers whose duty was to keep chaos at bay and math was very important to their sense of order. I would like to have a better understanding of the gods as nature gods but that deviates from discussion in this thread. I love just about everything said in the link and chose this paragraph because it addresses what we are talking about here. Before this paragraph more is said of Greeks adopting the Egyptian gods.

Quoting Multgo-13

The existence of Ma’at in Egyptian society and its myths in the meaning of both the
pharaonic and individual adherence to rules and principles to keep on the right path
reveals that most Egyptians did have a good understanding of just and unjust social
behaviour. In terms of consciousness, this implies that Egyptians were self-reflexive;
they were moral human beings capable of reflecting upon their own behaviour over a
period of time. This assertion is supported by the Italian neuroscientologist Antonio
Damasio’s theory of consciousness. In ‘The feeling of what happens’ (2000), Damasio
makes a distinction between three cumulative forms of human consciousness: 1. the
protoself: a person’s bodily state, which is the most basic representation of self. 2. The
core self: the awareness of the biological bodily state and emotions in the here and
now, which is a more evolved form of consciousness. 3. The autobiographical self: a
person’s reflection on the awareness of emotions over a longer period of time. The
autobiographical self is the third layer and most evolved form of consciousness. It
draws on memory and past experiences which involve the use of higher thought
processes. It requires a person to have a language, an autobiographical memory
capacity, and reasoning ability. Damasio believes that the autobiographical self is a
necessary condition for both rational and mythological thinking. Therefore, to his mind,
mythological thinking does not belong to a lower form of consciousness. Damasio
stresses that myths are not the product of the core self but, similar to rational thinking,
are the result of self-reflexive thoughts of the autobiographical self, which is both an
individual and a group member. An adult constructs this self with its experiences,
ideas, images, evaluations, likes, dislikes, achievements and failures. Although the
autobiographical self is unique to a person, he or she shares narratives with members
of the same peer group, community, or culture. This means that besides using our own
experiences, we include the experiences, ideologies and beliefs we inherit from
(deceased) members of our cultures, which makes us part of the larger narratives of
mankind. The autobiographical or self-reflexive self is thus the result of mythological
and logical individual thoughts of a person, whose consciousness is at the same time
constructed by and part of the collective consciousness of humanity as a whole
(Damasio 2000).

Quoting Fooloso4

As I see it, it is more of a question of the particular person. It is connected to the Socratic claim about the examined life. What I need to be aware of may not be what you need to be aware of.

I am very excited by the link I used in the reply to Vaskane because I think it is an excellent explanation of our concept of the self and the importance of being self-reflective. It certainly compliments what you have said.

quote="Fooloso4;858585"]Suppose two people grew up in the controlled environment where everything that happens to one happens to the other. In one sense their experience would be the same, but because they are different people I think their experience would be different in significant ways. Experience is not simply what happens to us, but how we react and respond.[/quote]

Absolutely true. Two people can sit side by side and watch the sunset and both will have a different experience of the sunset. My worst fights with my sister resulted from us having shared/different experiences, like Israel and Palestine have totally different stories about their shared history.

Quoting Fooloso4

True. The most important consequence of modern liberalism, for better and for worse, might be to reorient us around the individual. Some take this so far that they reject the notion of a common good. For them the rights of the individual stands at the center.

I think that was a very powerful statement. I need to chew on it for a while. It goes very well with this thread but adds more depth to the thought. You have taken a snapshot of a concept and put it in motion and I would like Hegel to jump in here and give us his take on this exchange of thought. I think we have leaped back and forth from individualism to a united force (times of war) and back to individualism, with this moment in time possibly being the most individualistic of all times. But this also puts pressure on government to enforce some kind of social order and do much more to meet individual needs.

Quoting Fooloso4

From a young age I rejected the idea that we should start writing with an outline. For me writing is a way of thinking.

Oh absolutely! No wonder we are disagreeing and getting along. We both experience thinking as an ongoing process that can lead to unexpected insights.

Quoting dani

And while there's no motivation for an individual to become liberated,

Socrates saw education as what liberates the people chained to the cave. Liberal education is about being liberated and capable of being self-governing.

All groups of people share agreements that are essential to the integrity of the group and your post is important to my effort to better understand how this group/individual thing works. We can not tolerate individuals picking weapons and committing mass murder. How do we have both, individuality and social order?

Quoting Athena

I am very excited by the link I used ...

A few quick comments.

From the second section on consciousness I am reminded of Dewey on the meaning of conscience (con - with, science -knowledge) to be, with the knowledge of others. What one would do if others were aware of what we are doing.

Plato makes great use of mythos, both existing mythos and those he creates. There is a logos to mythos. Although we typically think of logos as reason and logic, its range of meaning is much greater. Etymologically its root meaning is to collect or gather. In the dialogues, however, an appeal to mythos often occurs when argument fails.

In addition to the opposition between logos and mythos, there is the related opposition between philosophy and poetry. In this opposition too there is unity. Philosophical poiesis.

Quoting Athena

... a plagiarized Sumerian story of the creation of man.

Certainly stories from one culture became part of those of other cultures, but I do not think we should think of it as plagiarism. It is, rather, closer to what happens in fashion style.

Quoting Vaskane

I thought you wanted to know more about the virtues of a warrior.

The warrior's virtue is the ideal they fight for that gives them purpose beyond themselves, beyond the abyss that war leaves man engulfed within.

143 from Joyful wisdom isn't saying "Gods are literally made this way," it's showing the basis for Polytheism is that Deities are individuals who champion ideals. Much like a warrior who champions ideals.

The easiest way to defeat warriors and Gods is to remove/replace the ideal in which they fight/stand for.

Is there a site address for the information you shared, or a book title? I think I want that information but the print is too small for me to read it. I tried increasing the size of the print and that made it blurry. I like books better than reading a screen.

Last night the public broadcasting channel did a show about how many places contributed to the process of going from superstition in creation stories to science. I think the information available to us today is a whole lot different from the past. This gives me a lot of hope.

About the warrior's virtues, I do not want to argue against what you said, but I want to expand upon it. I think we all do better if we have a sense that our lives have meaning and purpose. The missionary is devoted to spreading religion. Those who got democracy going were devoted to creating a new social order that they believed would better serve humanity but their resources were limited.

I like what you said of Joyful wisdom. The Capitol Building of the US has a mural of the gods they thought best served democracy. Our Statue of Liberty, Lady of Justice, and Spirit of America as she is depicted in the mural, are the three aspects of Athena, the goddess of Liberty and Justice and Protector of those who stand for liberty and justice. All these images contain a sword. From here come the words "The pen is mightier than the sword". And this reasoning is about all of us having political power and responsibility. That is what makes the New Social Order so important. Together we can do more for the human potential than a god or king.

In my reading about the importance of being a warrior, it begins with physical fitness and for sure the ancient people thought that very important! There is a strong psychological impact to being physically fit. When our bodies give us feedback of strength that will lead to psychological strength as well, and now add knowledge of the virtues and understanding them to be strengths, and we get strong character committed to doing the good. Imagine how powerful a nation could be if everyone is prepared to be physically and mentally strong. That is what made us great, not war and weapons of war, and not putting ourselves first. Wow, a nation of obese people eating junk food and avoiding physical and mental activity can not be a world leader.

I can appreciate a focus on warrior virtues if includes a way of life that does not depend on war.

Quoting Fooloso4

From the second section on consciousness I am reminded of Dewey on the meaning of conscience (con - with, science -knowledge) to be, with the knowledge of others. What one would do if others were aware of what we are doing.

OMG you excited me again! How do you come to know Dewey? :cry: Those are tears of joy. Yes, if we look at an old Webster dictionary that provides the root of words, "conscience" is [con] coming out of science and that is tied to the democratic search for truth. Now we are back to Socrates and the search for truth, to know what is real and what is not and what is good and what is not. Logos, reason, the controlling force of the universe. This is something we can know through science. :heart: Thank you

Quoting Fooloso4

Plato makes great use of mythos, both existing mythos and those he creates. There is a logos to mythos. Although we typically think of logos as reason and logic, its range of meaning is much greater. Etymologically its root meaning is to collect or gather. In the dialogues, however, an appeal to mythos often occurs when argument fails.

Absolutely- sometimes poetry expresses a truth better than facts. We need to be sensitive to the fact that knowing facts without understanding their meaning is not that helpful. This is my concern with education for technology, especially when we went through a period of not teaching concepts and logic. A person with a high IQ can remember many facts and that is not equal to understanding concepts. Each god and goddess is a concept. They are not physically real, but as concepts, they represent a truth.

Quoting Fooloso4

Certainly stories from one culture became part of those of other cultures, but I do not think we should think of it as plagiarism. It is, rather, closer to what happens in fashion style.

Our understanding of reality might be totally different if the Hebrews who left Ur, had acknowledged the Sumerian contribution to their story of creation and the story of the flood. Just for fun, I like to consider that the story of a flood and Eden was based on actual events that got forgotten, turning an accurate account of what happened into a myth disconnected from the events. Archeologists may correct this problem.

Christians would not be happy to know several biblical stories came from Sumerian archives, not God Himself and I think truth is vital to everything. Living with a god who has favorite people and who gives these people permission to wipe out people occupying the land they want, and enslaving people and believing God is good with them treating them differently than we would be treated, continues to be a problem. While myths can contain truth, myths can also contain harmful lies. This is a problem Socrates knows well. :roll:

Quoting Athena

sometimes poetry expresses a truth better than facts.

Aristotle said that poetry is more philosophical and serious than history, because poetry tends to give general or universal truths while history gives particular facts. The poet is a "maker of stories" (Poetics, 145b)

Quoting Athena

Our understanding of reality might be totally different if the Hebrews who left Ur, had acknowledged the Sumerian contribution to their story of creation and the story of the flood.

Ours perhaps, but the question of authorship has a long and ancient history. Storytellers often credit gods and muses for the stories they tell. Some still regard the Bible as the word of God. Pseudonymous writing was an accepted practice and not regarded as deceit.

You might find the book "God: An Anatomy" by Francesca Stavrakopoulou
interesting. It deals with how the stories and concepts of what comes to be the god(s) of the Bible develop from one culture to another. As the title indicates, the focus is on gods as physical beings.

Quoting Fooloso4

You might find the book "God: An Anatomy" by Francesca Stavrakopoulou
interesting. It deals with how the stories and concepts of what comes to be the god(s) of the Bible develop from one culture to another. As the title indicates, the focus is on gods as physical beings.

That looks interesting. I looked for information about the book and that led to looking at other books. At the moment I think I would like an audiobook titled "Creating Christ How Roman Emperors Invented Christianity" best. I have wanted to know more about that for many years.

That explanation kind of goes with the subject of this thread about what makes a nation great. Obviously, the US has imitated both Athens and Rome. I think we agree it is both strong leaders and the led working together that make a nation great and Rome achieved that but eventually fell. I think there are vital factors that may or may not be in the people's control such as rapid growth and not being able to find enough gold to sustain the value of coins. Essential people must be able to meet their needs and keep their children alive. That means securing a supply of clean water, sanitation, food, and a stable economy. Essential is the organization of leadership and the social organization.

I think this thread may have died and I do not know if we can go any further in an exploration of greatness? However, another exciting piece of this puzzle is the role gods have played in shaping civilizations, our evolution, and our present consciousness. Do you have any thoughts about how that subject applies to great nations? Bill Graham embedded himself with Presidents and that increased his power and the power of the men who were presidents. And of course, that power is the mass of people that followed the leaders.

Quoting Athena

I think this thread may have died and I do not know if we can go any further in an exploration of greatness? However, another exciting piece of this puzzle is the role gods have played in shaping civilizations, our evolution, and our present consciousness. Do you have any thoughts about how that subject applies to great nations?

In the section "The Parable of the Madman" from Zarathustra our old friend (enemy?) Nietzsche asks:

God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we, murderers of all murderers, console ourselves? ... Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we not ourselves become gods simply to be worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed; and whosoever shall be born after us - for the sake of this deed he shall be part of a higher history than all history hitherto.

I am sorry I just can not relate to Nietzsche. Simply to be worthy of what? What is "it"?

The Greek gods were nothing like the God of Abraham so what does it mean to become gods? :confused:

for the sake of this deed he shall be part of a higher history than all history hitherto.

Zeus feared once man had the technology of fire he would learn all the other technologies and rival the gods. I think Zeus was correct and I think this has led to serious problems. The moral is, that we need the gods.

I hope you can give good arguments and also I hope you see why I am having a hard time relating to Nietzsche. I think a person's brain must be pickled in Christianity to appreciate what Nietzche is saying. I don't mean the person needs to be a Christian, but despite not being a Christian s/he can relate to Nietsche because s/he has no other frame of thought. Their minds don't immediately jump to the Greek gods like my mind does. Gods that are limited and like humans don't well with Neitsche's argument.

Each god is a concept and these concepts are important to us. May Appolo help us bridge our differences and find agreement. :grin: :heart:

Quoting Athena

Simply to be worthy of what? What is "it"?

Living without a god. Living without something higher. Plato does this with the idea of the good.

Quoting Athena

The Greek gods were nothing like the God of Abraham so what does it mean to become gods?

That is something Nietzsche asks us to consider. His inversion of Dionysus gives us some idea of what is at issue:

I, the last disciple and initiate of the God Dionysus: and perhaps I might at last begin to give you, my friends, as far as I am allowed, a little taste of this philosophy? In a hushed voice, as is but seemly: for it has to do with much that is secret, new, strange, wonderful, and uncanny. The very fact that Dionysus is a philosopher, and that therefore Gods also philosophize, seems to me a novelty which is not unensnaring, and might perhaps arouse suspicion precisely among philosophers.

— Beyond Good and Evil, 295

Both the God of Abraham and the Greek gods were willful gods. They were not lovers of wisdom in the sense of desiring and pursuing knowledge and wisdom. Through the influence of the Greek philosophers God becomes omniscient. Man is taught not to question. But a god who questions does not forbid man to question.

Quoting Athena

The moral is, that we need the gods.

But if we have killed God then what? What will replace them? Where can we find direction and guidance?

Quoting Athena

I think a person's brain must be pickled in Christianity to appreciate what Nietzche is saying.

I think it must be just the opposite. A person must overcome the burden Christianity has imposed on us. We must question rather than obey the tablets of "thou shall nots". See the chapter "The Three Metamorphoses of the Spirit" in Zarathustra.

Quoting Athena

I don't mean the person needs to be a Christian, but despite not being a Christian s/he can relate to Nietsche because s/he has no other frame of thought.

Yes, this frame of reference is important. To be like a god man must be a creator.

Quoting dani

While a deconstructionist may have 'the group' in mind, it is still an individualized group that follows 'what they think is right,' as you put it.

By 'individualized' are you just speaking to a 'group' adequately delineating itself? I ask, as i don't recognize what you're describing in these movements at all really. The whole 'eating it's tail' trope around identitarian groups having very much gate-keeping qualities about them comes to mind.

I might be over-blowing that particular aspect - but it does seem to me that the Frankfurt/Horkheimer origins speak to a very distinct flavour of anti-individualism, essentially replacing individual conceptions with group-accepted ones, in turn attempting to pit these against the conceptions and gate-keeping of other groups in a 'power struggle'. This is never done on the individual level, so i guess I'm wanting a bit more to understand the position that deconstructionist thought has any focus on individuation beyond lip-service?

Quoting Athena

Are we great because of a few great men such as Cyrus the Great, Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Nietzsche, George Washington, or Donald Trump or are we great because we are united and socialized so that together we can imagine and manifest great things?

The Great Man Theory assumes that world-changing leaders are born, not socialized. In fact, most of them --- Alexander the Great, Napoleon, (Trump???) --- were ass-holes in social interactions, and dictatorial in their governance. Their fervid followers followed them, not because they were nice guys, but because they were perceived to have the "right-stuff" to change the world from the unsatisfactory status quo. It's the job of collectivist-socialist nerds to counteract the immoral excesses of the world-conquerors.

But even the bureaucratic leaders of the masses sometimes turn-out to be ass-holes ; perhaps due to the absolute power corrupts principle. The rest of us have to choose which band-wagon to jump on. Or to arduously make our own path. Fortunately, Democracy allows us the freedom to choose neither King nor Communism. But even that option is an uphill struggle without a clear path to follow. :smile:



Essentially, according to the Great Man Theory, people in positions of power deserve to lead because of characteristics granted to them at birth, which ultimately help them become heroes. No great man lives in vain. The history of the world is but the biography of great men.
https://thedecisionlab.com/reference-guide/anthropology/great-man-theory

Quoting Fooloso4

Living without a god. Living without something higher. Plato does this with the idea of the good.

I don't think living without something higher is equal to Plato's idea of the good. In AA they hold a concept of a higher power that is not dependent on the Bible. When we think of that higher power or the good we are opening our minds to something new, a better self. Just denying God is not the same thing and the difference is very important to our understanding of democracy.

I, the last disciple and initiate of the God Dionysus

That sounds a little egotistical, and it seems to be exactly why I dislike Nietzsche and his effect on too many people. Also, such statements are perceptions of a young person, not an older person. If I were a college student I would do a paper on how age changes our thinking and I would use several philosophers to make my point. And you can bet your bippy, such a thought would have never come to my mind when I was a young college student. I remember my rebellious years.

I want to thank you for your arguments that have made me more aware and concerned about how age changes our perspective. Socrates had to be in his later years when he said an unexamined life isn't worth living because that is not the thought of a young person. You have to have years of life experience before there is a life to examine. In comparison, Nietzsche's egotistical statement lacks life experience or at least experience with other cultures.

Quoting Fooloso4

But if we have killed God then what?

That is a young person's egotistical trip and it is not good for society. I am opposed to Christianity because it is such a problem! Like if I must believe in God then please give me one that is believable. Nietzsche may not have had such a following without that jealous, revengeful, punishing God. In India, there is a different concern about our egos and wars. Nietzsche is not likely to be popular in India.

Quoting Fooloso4

I think it must be just the opposite. A person must overcome the burden Christianity has imposed on us. We must question rather than obey the tablets of "thou shall nots". See the chapter "The Three Metamorphoses of the Spirit" in Zarathustra.

How about if we want to know "God" we make an effort to know the worldwide and historical notions of god or the creator? Germans who became very popular seem to me to be very culturally limited. Except Spinoza. I am quite sure Spinoza was aware of Eastern thinking.

Every civilization needs the short list of correct human behavior because it is many years before a human knows enough to have good judgment. This can be learning 12 characteristics of democracy and learning the virtues. We have societies by agreement that form the culture that is essential for civilized living. Again I will say, that I think Nietzsche was young and egoistical because an older person might appreciate social order and be less inclined to oppose it and think "I am god and there will be no god above me." I can remember my years of opposing the oppression of society and how long it took me to get the reasoning behind our culture.

I said "I don't mean the person needs to be a Christian, but despite not being a Christian s/he can relate to Nietsche because s/he has no other frame of thought." and I don't think you got my point. Everyone comes to Nietzsche through Christianity, whether that person is a Christian or not. The average person is not trying to understand all thoughts of god/creator and as many other cultures as possible, so the reference for the whole Western civilization is Christianity. We wear cultural and religious blinders.

We are creators and the Greek gods were as humans, except they were immortal. I think you are missing the point I am trying to make. The God of Abraham is absolute power and control and this is nothing like the Greek gods who were limited, who were compelled to do this or that because of logos, and who argued with each other. They made us aware of many different concepts and points of view that lead to increasing our knowledge and perhaps taking this god's side of a disagreement or that god's side. We really underappreciate the importance of these gods, because Christianity has reduced our ability to think. Our thoughts stop with the one and only God, and this is terrible for democracy.

Quoting Gnomon

The Great Man Theory assumes that world-changing leaders are born, not socialized. In fact, most of them --- Alexander the Great, Napoleon, (Trump???) --- were ass-holes in social interactions, and dictatorial in their governance. Their fervid followers followed them, not because they were nice guys, but because they were perceived to have the "right-stuff" to change the world from the unsatisfactory status quo. It's the job of collectivist-socialist nerds to counteract the immoral excesses of the world-conquerors.

But even the bureaucratic leaders of the masses sometimes turn-out to be ass-holes ; perhaps due to the absolute power corrupts principle. The rest of us have to choose which band-wagon to jump on. Or to arduously make our own path. Fortunately, Democracy allows us the freedom to choose neither King nor Communism. But even that option is an uphill struggle without a clear path to follow. :smile:



Essentially, according to the Great Man Theory, people in positions of power deserve to lead because of characteristics granted to them at birth, which ultimately help them become heroes. No great man lives in vain. The history of the world is but the biography of great men.
https://thedecisionlab.com/reference-guide/anthropology/great-man-theory

:gasp: This is from your link "Leadership traits are inherent and cannot be learned." Does anyone today believe that?

Reading your post, I got a little tickled by a different point of view from ancient Athens. In ancient Greek thought the gods chose who would be heroes but not all chosen men became heroes. It seems they saw the masses like cattle, content to go with the flow as long as their bellies were full. And those chosen to be heroes could decline and not accept the challenge the gods had given them.

They also had a system that prevented people from risking having too much power. If a person overstepped the person could be osterized for 10 years. This would take care of the Trump problem.

Quoting Wikipedia

Ostracism (Greek: ???????????, ostrakismos) was an Athenian democratic procedure in which any citizen could be expelled from the city-state of Athens for ten years. While some instances clearly expressed popular anger at the citizen, ostracism was often used preemptively. It was used as a way of neutralizing someone thought to be a threat to the state or a potential tyrant, though in many cases popular opinion often informed the expulsion. The word "ostracism" continues to be used for various cases of social shunning.

I don't like it when Wikipedia and others claim Zeus was the king. Zeus and the rest of the gods and goddesses were one big family. They argued just as humans do until they had a consensus on the best reasoning. Well, that reasoning part came a bit late when Apollo stepped into the picture and Athens began tipping away from superstition and towards science. For a while strong men who owed the property essential to wealth provided a might makes right social order, but following the Persian wars, Athens advanced democracy.

To understand bureaucratic leadership, we need to understand Prussian military bureaucracy and how that was applied to citizens. This creates a very powerful bureaucracy that crushes individual liberty and power and the US has fully embraced this. The US has replaced its domestic education based on Athens' education for well-rounded individual growth, with Germany's model of education for technology that goes with the German bureaucratic model. People are now specialized instead of prepared to be generalists and this impacts the democratic order. The day everyone can discuss this, I will die of shock because it is not a common area of study. However, we have history and we can know the result of adopting Germany's models of bureaucracy and education, a leader like Trump, and a Congress that has become dysfunctional.

Wow, it would be mind-blowing if we could get into what bureaucratic organization has to do with leadership! How do we like the Republican power games and Democratic fumbling? I promise you I am a strong Christian and God himself wants you to vote for me and help our great Republic defend itself from evil and the godless people of the world. :wink: Do I have your vote?

Quoting AmadeusD

By 'individualized' are you just speaking to a 'group' adequately delineating itself? I ask, as i don't recognize what you're describing in these movements at all really. The whole 'eating it's tail' trope around identitarian groups having very much gate-keeping qualities about them comes to mind.

I might be over-blowing that particular aspect - but it does seem to me that the Frankfurt/Horkheimer origins speak to a very distinct flavour of anti-individualism, essentially replacing individual conceptions with group-accepted ones, in turn attempting to pit these against the conceptions and gate-keeping of other groups in a 'power struggle'. This is never done on the individual level, so i guess I'm wanting a bit more to understand the position that deconstructionist thought has any focus on individuation beyond lip-service?

Please forgive my complete ignorance of these people and everything they have been doing. If anyone wants more information here is a link. https://iep.utm.edu/critical-theory-frankfurt-school/#:~:text=Some%20of%20the%20key%20issues,of%20the%20pathologies%20of%20society.

I want to rush to a John Dewey book and see how compatible he is with the "Frankfurt School, known more appropriately as Critical Theory, is a philosophical and sociological movement spread across many universities around the world." If I didn't have a day job, I would love to go to a retreat and spend at least 6 months understanding the School and comparing it to John Dewey's thinking.

The information you offered definitely applies to this thread but I have too much to learn before I can work with this information. Can you give us a bite-sized concept that we might chew on? When I read your post, my first thought was we all need a sense of belonging and this leads us to join groups that give us a sense of meaning and belonging. People who do not establish a support group, tend to be isolated and lonely. Money can definitely make that easier to bear but as I work with older people, my job is a whole lot harder if my client is alone in this world.

Quoting Athena

I don't think living without something higher is equal to Plato's idea of the good.

For Plato the good is what is higher. In the Christian West the death of God is for Nietzsche the rejection of anything higher. That is so in part because God was held to be what is higher. Nietzsche makes the connection with the notion of a value free objective science. He asks what we will find to stand as something higher.

Quoting Athena

That sounds a little egotistical, and it seems to be exactly why I dislike Nietzsche

I think it is intended to mimic the Bible, which I know you also dislike.

Quoting Athena

And you can bet your bippy

Alas, in my old age I lost my bippy.

Quoting Athena

Nietzsche may not have had such a following without that jealous, revengeful, punishing God.

Unlike some philosophers Nietzsche doe not speak about timeless truths. If things were different the issues he addresses would be different. What he would say and how interesting it would be I don't know.

Quoting Athena

The God of Abraham is absolute power and control ...

If there was an Abraham this is not a god he would have recognized. The idea of omnipotence was a later development. From what I have read the major influence was Greek philosophy and the idea of a perfect being.

Quoting Athena

who were compelled to do this or that because of logos

This is not an argument I am familiar with. My impression is that they were compelled by desire - lust and power.

Quoting Athena

We really underappreciate the importance of these gods, because Christianity has reduced our ability to think.

By the time of Plato, if not before, the gods had already been diminished in importance and influence.

Quoting Athena

Our thoughts stop with the one and only God, and this is terrible for democracy.

This is true for some but certainly not for others. Even with those who believe in God there is interest in what other religions, sects, and cultures have to say.

Quoting Athena

:gasp: This is from your link "Leadership traits are inherent and cannot be learned." Does anyone today believe that?

I don't know if a complete survey of such political attitudes has been done. But I recently saw a video of a Trump supporter, who said something like "if he was not praying daily, how could he get to be a billionaire?", and by implication, president. SomeTrumpers seem to believe his own propaganda, that he is a born --- and born-again --- Genius.

Perhaps a combination of inborn superiority and a close relationship with god, will make you a leader : economically and politically. Apparently, a significant portion of the political spectrum believes something like that. :meh:

Quoting Fooloso4

For Plato the good is what is higher. In the Christian West the death of God is for Nietzsche the rejection of anything higher. That is so in part because God was held to be what is higher. Nietzsche makes the connection with the notion of a value free objective science. He asks what we will find to stand as something higher.

Quoting AmadeusD

AmadeusD

Yes and colleges have been favoring German philosophers over the classical ones and boy are we in a mess! That goes with education for technology and leaving moral training to the church. A terrible mistake. Democracy was not an unknown value and fortunately, liberal colleges are keeping classical education alive. But waiting for college is too late! The essential education for life needs to begin in first grade. I have old textbooks that show how values were once taught.

Quoting Fooloso4

I think it is intended to mimic the Bible, which I know you also dislike.

:lol: Yes, Germany left moral training to the church as the US has done since adopting the German model of education. That is not compatible with democracy.

Quoting Fooloso4

Alas, in my old age I lost my bippy.

:lol: :up:

Quoting Fooloso4

Unlike some philosophers Nietzsche doe not speak about timeless truths. If things were different the issues he addresses would be different. What he would say and how interesting it would be I don't know.

What would be interesting to me is what age was he when he wrote of different things. I am sorry but I see him as an angry young man who says what he says to get attention, and how is that as valuable as seeking timeless truths? That statement is not just about him but also those who admire him. I have public speaking training and a speaker should begin with knowing the audience and adjust the speech with knowledge of the listeners. Perhaps my life experience tells me nothing about him, but I am explaining where I am coming from so you can tell me if I am wrong.

Quoting Fooloso4

If there was an Abraham this is not a god he would have recognized. The idea of omnipotence was a later development. From what I have read the major influence was Greek philosophy and the idea of a perfect being.

No, Abraham is a human who led his people out of Ur (former Sumerian City) and back to Egypt. Sumer had fallen but it still had the Sumerian archives where the Sumerian stories were stored leading to Abraham carrying these Sumerian stories that became our Bible stories.

We should be so lucky for all to aspire to be heroes or the perfect human. Even if we only do this for ourselves it still comes up as very good for democracy. For fun, we might explore what does it mean to be perfect? Zeus committed adultery, and Socrates asked, "Are the gods good?" the answer is "yes". Next question "Is it good to commit adultery?" The answer is "no". Can we think about how imperfect the gods were before we attempt to define the ideal human? Perhaps you can see a huge gap
between my thinking and the thinking of those blinded by Christianity.

Quoting Fooloso4

By the time of Plato, if not before, the gods had already been diminished in importance and influence.

Yes, the Persian wars led to the Athenian navy which became merchant ships after the war and then colonization and as the Athenians learned about different gods they started to question what they thought they knew. Having many gods is totally different from having one absolute god. Freedom of religion welcomed everyone's gods and this weakened the whole god thing.

Quoting Fooloso4

Even with those who believe in God there is interest in what other religions, sects, and cultures have to say.

That interest is not nearly as strong as Evangelical Christians. I am out of time but the subject is wonderful! Thank you so much for your arguments. We might ask what is strength because the strongest may not be what is true. :grin:

Quoting Gnomon

I don't know if a complete survey of such political attitudes has been done. But I recently saw a video of a Trump supporter, who said something like "if he was not praying daily, how could he get to be a billionaire?", and by implication, president. SomeTrumpers seem to believe his own propaganda, that he is a born --- and born-again --- Genius.

Perhaps a combination of inborn superiority and a close relationship with god, will make you a leader : economically and politically. Apparently, a significant portion of the political spectrum believes something like that. :meh:

Perect! I hate to leave this discussion now but what you said goes perfectly with my closing statement to Fooloso4. The strongest power may not be the truth. It should be the truth, but critical thinking is essential to knowing truth and Americans are not high on critical thinking compared to being an Evangelical Christian. And I think you tied that to capitalism very nicely. :cheer:

Quoting Athena

AmadeusD
— AmadeusD

Yes and colleges have been favoring German philosophers over the classical ones and boy are we in a mess!

Hi Athena! Sorry for not yet replying to your earlier comment. I don't necessarily think I am the best-placed member to give a good account of that school of thought.

However, did i miss something that the post i've quoted above relates to? I'm unsure it was intended for me :)

Quoting Athena

Yes and colleges have been favoring German philosophers over the classical ones ...

In some cases this is true. When I went to grad school I found out who was teaching at the schools I was considering and what their approach and interests were. More often than not, they favored American analytic philosophy. I did not find evidence of "moral training" but moral philosophy was often represented.

By way of comparison, I went on to teach courses on Chinese, Japanese, and Greek philosophy.

Quoting Athena

But waiting for college is too late!

Yes, I agree.

Quoting Athena

... a speaker should begin with knowing the audience and adjust the speech with knowledge of the listeners.

In the section "Reading and Writing" from Zarathustra he says:

He who knoweth the reader, doeth nothing more for the reader.

A couple of quotes from Wittgenstein sheds some light on this:

From the preface to Philosophical Investigations:

I should not like my writing to spare other people the trouble of thinking.

And in Culture and Value:

No one can think a thought for me in the way that no one can don my hat for me.

Someone can put my hat on but it won't keep my head warm.

Quoting Athena

Abraham is a human ...

If you mean he was a real person, a historical figure you will not find much scholarly support. If you mean that these stories had their antecedents then yes, but as they have come to us they reflect other ideas as well.

Here is an interesting commentary on this from Genesis. God tells Adam not to eat of the tree of knowledge, but from God to Adam to Eve to the serpent what God said has already been altered. Eve embellishes the story, not only are they forbidden from eating the fruit of the tree, they are forbidden from even touching it. In addition, the tree "in the midst of the garden" is not the tree of knowledge but the tree of life. One might think that the move from an oral tradition to a written one has solved that problem but it has not. It is not a question of not hearing correctly or not remembering correctly but of interpretation. It is not simply a matter of the words of God but of their interpretation. The serpent understood this. He spoke the truth when he assured Eve that they would not die on the day they ate of the tree. But his reputation for subtlety is well deserved. It is because of what they did on that day that they would die. As a literal interpretation of God's warning the serpent was right, they did not die on that day, but that was not the whole of it, as he knew. He wittingly deceived her, but we, wittingly or unwittingly, deceive ourselves; interpreting things in such a way that they conform to some larger picture or structure of belief.

Quoting Athena

Socrates asked, "Are the gods good?" the answer is "yes".

According to Plato's Euthyphro the answer is no. Their less than exemplary behavior is the basis of Socrates' criticism of Euthyphro's misguided piety.

Quoting Athena

We might ask what is strength because the strongest may not be what is true.

Yup. This is the ambiguity the Sophists exploited, including their present day brethren, lawyers, and all too often philosophers who are skilled at making strong arguments.

Quoting Fooloso4

In some cases this is true. When I went to grad school I found out who was teaching at the schools I was considering and what their approach and interests were. More often than not, they favored American analytic philosophy. I did not find evidence of "moral training" but moral philosophy was often represented.

Interesting. Starting out my academic journey sort of at the moment - seeking advice from many quarters, the one cohesion between the bits of advice i've gotten is to ensure the faculty doesn't favour continental philosophy - and that this is widespread, and a slippery slope to actually not doing philosophy lol.

obviously, i can't speak one way or the other, but interesting that you've a different conception of that. Gives me pause.

Reply to AmadeusD

My advice is to consider what interests you. Whether that is particular philosophers, particular problems, or particular approaches. Check out the faculty and what areas they write on. Some departments are big enough that you might find a few members you want to work with. It might be a good idea not look to match your interests too closely and expand the way you think about things.

As to continental vs. analytic, the people you are talking to are just showing their biases. The division is not always hard and clear-cut.

The truth is, contrary to common assumptions, there are many professors who are ignorant and close-minded. Who just repeat whatever party-line they swallowed however long age.

Reply to Fooloso4 Fair enough. Luckily, that was (roughly) the approach i took anyway.

However, I've seen a pretty clear distinction - some schools only teach what is generally understood to be 'continental' philosophy to the exclusion of anything similar to the majority of what i understand to be analytic philosophy. I saw one department that only offered courses from Kant forward to the Frankfurt school and no further (i.e, still some modern philosophers but only included the likes of Zizek and the Ljubljana school, basically, under their BA structure.

Maybe i just 'got lucky' in that sense - But in any case, i am far more toward choosing courses and tutors based on the questions i want to address in the next forty-some years.

Reply to AmadeusD

Where are you located?

Reply to Fooloso4 New Zealand - but i also looked about a bit in the UK, as i'm also a citizen there (and Ireland.. lol).

Reply to AmadeusD

My experience is limited to the US.

Quoting Fooloso4

The truth is, contrary to common assumptions, there are many professors who are ignorant and close-minded. Who just repeat whatever party-line they swallowed however long age.

I met with the head of philosophy at my university back in 1988. I has been somewhat annoyed by the approach taken over the year, which was essentially telling us how to think. He laughed and said, 'Son, you're not here to learn about philosophy, you're here to parrot back to us that which we think is correct. If you want to learn philosophy, leave this course.' Which I promptly did 30 minutes later. I never regretted the choice. Anyway now I'm here, sniffing around to see what I might have missed.

Quoting Tom Storm

I never regretted the choice. Anyway now I'm here, sniffing around to see what I might have missed.

This is brilliant lol

Reply to AmadeusD

There was nothing in personal in that post. I just get on my soap box when it comes to education and democracy. If I knew more myself, I might start a thread comparing the classical philosophy with the German philosophy. But that would take more studying than I want to do right now. Germany had an interesting relationship with Christianity imagining itself as the Holy Roman Empire and later, the state is God's will and all should obey the state. Classical philosophy was not influenced by Christianity and put man in a completely different relationship with reality.

Quoting Fooloso4

I did not find evidence of "moral training" but moral philosophy was often represented.

That goes with someone wearing your hat does not keep your head warm. Philosophy should never be memorizing what was said but always be about understanding concepts and independent thinking.

Tom Storm's experience is as dreadful as some of my own experiences with professors. I wish I had been a stronger person back in the day, instead of feeling powerless when a professor behaved badly.

Quoting Tom Storm

I met with the head of philosophy at my university back in 1988. I had been somewhat annoyed by the approach taken over the year, which was essentially telling us how to think. He laughed and said, 'Son, you're not here to learn about philosophy, you're here to parrot back to us that which we think is correct. If you want to learn philosophy, leave this course.' Which I promptly did 30 minutes later. I never regretted the choice. Anyway now I'm here, sniffing around to see what I might have missed.

Quoting Fooloso4

By way of comparison, I went on to teach courses on Chinese, Japanese, and Greek philosophy.

I want to know so much more about why you chose Asian philosophy. I have a terrible feeling that Christianity has closed out those wonderful sources of wisdom. I don't know exactly how to approach this subject but I hope you say more about that choice.

Quoting Fooloso4

Abraham is a human ...
— Athena

If you mean he was a real person, a historical figure you will not find much scholarly support. If you mean that these stories had their antecedents then yes, but as they have come to us they reflect other ideas as well.

I was not aware of there being any question of Abraham being a real person. There is no problem getting sources to validate the existence of Abraham.

Cynthia Astle:By Cynthia Astle
Updated on May 04, 2019
Archaeology has been one of biblical history's greatest tools to sift out verified facts of Bible stories. In fact, over the past few decades archaeologists have learned a great deal about the world of Abraham in the Bible. Abraham is considered to be the spiritual father of the world's three great monotheistic religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

This is from Britannica

Britannica:Where was Abraham from? The Bible states that Abraham was raised in “Ur of the Chaldeans” (Ur Kasdim). Most scholars agree that Ur Kasdim was the Sumerian city Ur, today Tall al-Muqayyar (or Tall al-Mughair), about 200 miles (300 km) southeast of Baghdad in lower Mesopotamia.Nov 19, 2023

At least there is no claim of Abraham being god. There is a big problem with deifying Jesus. On the other hand, it is fascinating what the ability to write has to do with us having a Bible and believing the history of a tribe is important to us. If these people did not keep a written record of their tribe, the world might be a very different place today.

Are you thinking the story of Adam and Eve is anything other than a story equal to Aesop's Fables? Why debate how Eve misinterpreted the commandment to not eat from the Tree of Knowledge? I like the story of Pandora and the Box better. Both stories are about a god's concern about what humans will do with knowledge but the Greek story does not blame the first man and woman and he does not punish them for doing something wrong but gives Pandora a box/jar full of miseries to slow down the human progress in discovering technologies with the hope they will continue to value the gods. You know, have technology with wisdom. Today we have technology but not the wisdom we need. That was Zues's fear.

About the question are the gods good_
Quoting Fooloso4

According to Plato's Euthyphro the answer is no. Their less than exemplary behavior is the basis of Socrates' criticism of Euthyphro's misguided piety.

Socrates was also condemned to drink the hemlock for his impiety. A person arguing the gods are not good does not cancel out the fact that the popular opinion was the gods are good. Today we could ask "is God good" and Christians would say yes. Our next question should be, is it good to be jealous, revengeful, and fearsome? Knowing a little of past Christianity I find the new Evangelical Christianity of a loving God, amazing. That is not how God was known for a couple of thousand years. At least not the Protestant God. I am not an expert but I think the Catholic God is much more forgiving and caring.

Asking for a god's help worked as well in ancient Athens as it does now, and believers who experience the help of the gods, do not like arguments that oppose their belief.

Wikipedia:An incantation, a spell, a charm, an enchantment, or a bewitchery, is a magical formula intended to trigger a magical effect on a person or objects. The formula can be spoken, sung, or chanted. An incantation can also be performed during ceremonial rituals or prayers. Wikipedia

The ancients used incantations to get the help of the gods. We use prayers. What is the difference?

From a certain point of view, there are no individuals. Where an individual begins and ends is basically arbitrary. Same with a group. There are beings all around us of all kinds— we humans categorize them in our perception and our language.

The focus on “great men” is as arbitrary as “great nations” or “great peoples.” It can be that simple if we want it to be— Namely, if we want to tell the story of history as a series of humans who we deem worth remembering. Personally, I think it’s mostly crap. There’s so much chance involved it’s barely worth considering, and most achieved their status as a result of others’ influence anyway, from Alexander to Napoleon.

Reply to Athena
Be careful with such so called evidence Athena.
"Most scholars view the patriarchal age, along with the Exodus and the period of the biblical judges, as a late literary construct that does not relate to any particular historical era, and after a century of exhaustive archaeological investigation, no evidence has been found for a historical Abraham."

From a quick search:
Cynthia Astle is a veteran journalist who has covered the worldwide United Methodist Church at all levels for more than 30 years, Cynthia B. Astle serves as editor of United Methodist Insight, an online journal she founded in 2011. So she is hardly an independent judge of any historical evidence for Abraham as a real boy.

Cynthia Astle:Archaeology has been one of biblical history's greatest tools to sift out verified facts of Bible stories. In fact, over the past few decades archaeologists have learned a great deal about the world of Abraham in the Bible. Abraham is considered to be the spiritual father of the world's three great monotheistic religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam

The words in bold talk about the world of Abraham. and the words underlined cites the bible as the source. This is no evidence at all that Abraham was a real boy, any more than the world of Gilgamesh or the world of harry potter, suggests they were real either.

If you enter something like 'was the biblical Abraham a real person?' I will find more convincing evidence against that claim than I will in support of it. But, I am an atheist who does not think that any of the biblical characters were real. So, I am a bit bias towards the evidence against Abraham existing as a real boy. Even though I am open to overwhelming evidence that he did exist and the events claimed did happen. I think such biblical characters are all parodies and satirical caricatures of many real people, who lived during those times and way back in the BCE past. Such are all based on Chinese whisper style stories, passed down with alterations from each telling, based on the biases/intentions/intrigues of each storyteller.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence or else we should treat any claim that these were real people and real events, as highly compromised. We need evidence similar to the level of evidence we have that Julius Caesar was a real boy and we need extraordinary evidence to accept than a fabled character like Abraham, interacted with angels etc.

Quoting Athena

Philosophy should never be memorizing what was said but always be about understanding concepts and independent thinking.

It is often a game of wack-a-mole theorizing. Defending and attacking competing theories. Popping up again with modifications only to be wacked back down again.

Quoting Athena

I want to know so much more about why you chose Asian philosophy.

It chose me. It is common to ask an instructor to teach courses outside their area. Some instructors will just find a textbook, and let it do most of the work. Some textbooks have teacher editions that discussion questions and sample tests. That is not the way I do things.

I use primary texts. Rather than reading about philosophers and schools we read and attempt to interpret and discuss their work. To keep this short I had to do a lot of reading to prep.

Quoting Athena

I have a terrible feeling that Christianity has closed out those wonderful sources of wisdom.

Earlier editions of these works suffered from Christian influenced translation. This is no longer the case. We now have available translations done by scholars who have studied the language and the literature as well as western philosophy.

Quoting Athena

I don't know exactly how to approach this subject but I hope you say more about that choice.

You might start with something like this

Reading about what the translator says about translation is often a good clue.

Quoting Athena

There is no problem getting sources to validate the existence of Abraham.

The problem is these sources.

We can get some idea of the problem at issue from Exodus:

And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them?

And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

God also said to Moses, "Say to the Israelites, `The LORD, the God of your fathers--the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob--has sent me to you.' This is my name forever, the name by which I am to be remembered from generation to generation.
(Exodus 3:13-15)

Why is there a question of God's name? There are several different names for gods in the Hebrew Bible. Monotheism is often assumed and following this the names are taken to be different names for the same god, but monotheism was a later development. In other words, the problem Moses faces is which god will the people to heed. The answer avoids names and says instead that the god of your fathers is the same god, the god of Abraham, the god of Isaac, and the god of Jacob. Moses unites the various stories and beliefs that developed over time among the Egyptian Jews.

It is, however, questionable whether Moses, the great unifier existed either. In fact, the Hebrew Bible is the work of unnamed unifiers.

Quoting Athena

Are you thinking the story of Adam and Eve is anything other than a story equal to Aesop's Fables?

I do not know Aesop's Fables well enough to say that they are equal, but some stories are more than just a story.

Quoting Athena

Both stories are about a god's concern about what humans will do with knowledge but the Greek story does not blame the first man and woman and he does not punish them for doing something wrong ...

There is a great deal more going on in the story of the first man. For one, he blames Eve and God for giving her to him. A bit more about this gift. In order to make Eve God destroys Adam's unity or wholeness, which results, among other things, in the need to make two one.

Rather than the focus on punishment I take the story to be more about the consequences of having knowledge. God sums it up:

And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” (Genesis 3:22)

Man should not be allowed to become gods. Death, like life, is both a blessing and a curse. The dualism of blessings and curses in this story should not be overlooked. They go hand in hand. They are tied to the dualism of knowledge. Knowledge is productive. Its fruits are both good and bad. Adam knew Eve.

Quoting Athena

Socrates was also condemned to drink the hemlock for his impiety. A person arguing the gods are not good does not cancel out the fact that the popular opinion was the gods are good.

Socrates called himself a midwife for men. He helps them birth their opinions. In the Euthyphro we see what issues from this opinion. As a standard, popular opinion is not always a high standard.

[quote="Fooloso4;864423"]I want to know so much more about why you chose Asian philosophy.
— Athena

It chose me. It is common to ask an instructor to teach courses outside their area. Some instructors will just find a textbook, and let it do most of the work. Some textbooks have teacher editions that discussion questions and sample tests. That is not the way I do things.

I use primary texts. Rather than reading about philosophers and schools we read and attempt to interpret and discuss their work. To keep this short I had to do a lot of reading to prep. [quote]

I want to know more. Which philosophers did your class examine?

I am thinking, that some philosophers are extremely difficult to read and I like the shortcut of reading someone else's explanation of what the original person said. But mind you, until relatively recently I have done my reading on my own without others to discuss them with and that does not have the same motivation of knowing one will interact with others. I am stumbling in the dark with philosophy without guidance.

I also attempted to read the Bible for myself and found it to be as terrible as Socrates found the stories told of the gods. For me, the Bible says so many stupid and horrible things it is not worth my time, but then I read your explanations and I am favorably impressed by your deeper understanding. If they give trophies to people who expand the thinking of others, you deserve one because I am pretty belligerent when it comes to the Bible. I still think the Christian thing is very problematic and harmful to democracy but you have shown a well-educated person can see more meaning of the stories than a less educated person.

I think the quotes you chose make it clear Judaism is a tribal religion, not an explanation of a universal god whose children are equal under the sun. And that tribal religion comes with a hierarchy that is not compatible with democracy. I am edging us back to the subject of this thread- Is our greatness the result of working together or the result of great leaders? What part does God play in this? I am getting at the international point of view and the fact that in some countries Americans are obnoxious people because they believe they are God's chosen people and that what they want, God wills for them. As the story goes we are blessed by God and those who oppose us are evil. Why else would God give us the technology of nuclear weapons if He did not want us to rule? Or as Zeus might say, that technology for war is a forbidden fruit and the longer it takes for us to have such technology the better. :wink:

The Greeks had a war with the Maccabees because the Greeks favored merit hiring and did not comply with the Jewish notion of God-chosen men and inherited rights to certain jobs. Martin Luther did not question God chose who would be masters and who would be slaves. Only recently has science begun explaining how past favoritism unjustly held some men down. The US is still struggling with old beliefs that justify divisions of humans. The question of greatness has social, political, and economic ramifications. The US was a New Social Order, but I don't think anyone today understands that because we replaced education for good citizenship and good moral judgment with education for technology and left moral training to the church.

:worry: Oh darn, I am dealing with a mental breakdown. My brain absolutely will not follow the linear process essential to comprehensive thinking. I am trying to clear up my thinking so I can make a comprehensive statement about democracy and the human potential. Then religion comes into the discussion and things are so complex for me, and I am afraid I am getting further from my goal. In the past, the goal was to write a book and I did great until bumped into the Christian issue. Trying to deal with the Christian issue without offending anyone took down my effort to write a book like an iceberg took down the Titanic. But the original Greek understanding of humans and gods is nothing like the God of Abraham's understanding of humans and God.

Quoting Fooloso4

And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” (Genesis 3:22)

Man should not be allowed to become gods. Death, like life, is both a blessing and a curse. The dualism of blessings and curses in this story should not be overlooked. They go hand in hand. They are tied to the dualism of knowledge. Knowledge is productive. Its fruits are both good and bad. Adam knew Eve.

Those who practice Hinduism and Buddhism do not wish for immortality on a plant where there is much suffering. I think you know more about this than I do.

What does it mean to be like "one of us" and to whom is that God speaking? Gods are immortals. Humans are not. I don't know how gods come to know what they know but humans have to learn everything and if they do not experience learning something they know nothing of what they did not learn.

If the Bible does anything, it spreads notions of good and evil, and if that is forbidden knowledge then why is there a religion that spreads that knowledge? I think I have identified why the Bible irritates me. It is intense frustration! What is to stop us from doing anything if not our ideas about good and evil and our conscience which is activated when we think we did something wrong?

I want to know more. Which philosophers did your class examine?

In the Chinese philosophy class we read:

Kongzi (Confucius), Mozi, Mengzi (Mencius),Laozi (“The Daodejing”), and Zhuangzi.

The Daodejing is perhaps the most popular. Kongzi is quite different but also popular. My favorite is Zhuangzi. I will be starting a thread on him soon.

In the Japanese philosophy course, from what I remember, we read Dogen and Hakuin. Although not primary sources we read on the topics of Bushido, Wabi-sabi.

There are others that I forgot. I will be away from my books until the spring.

But mind you, until relatively recently I have done my reading on my own without others to discuss them with

Yes, this is a problem. When someone asks me what they should read I find it very difficult to answer.

I think the quotes you chose make it clear Judaism is a tribal religion, not an explanation of a universal god whose children are equal under the sun.

That was a later development within Judaism. It has a very long history. It is often assumed that it was from the start monotheistic. It was not. The move from "our god" to the only god we worship to the only god in Isaiah happened over that long history.

Oh darn, I am dealing with a mental breakdown. My brain absolutely will not follow the linear process essential to comprehensive thinking.

On the contrary it may be a sign of progress. Perhaps comprehensive thinking is not linear. Wittgenstein said:

When you are philosophizing you have to descend into primeval chaos and feel at home there.

(Culture and Value)

Quoting universeness

The words in bold talk about the world of Abraham. and the words underlined cites the bible as the source. This is no evidence at all that Abraham was a real boy, any more than the world of Gilgamesh or the world of harry potter, suggests they were real either.

I agree and disagree with that. I have a nephew who is a preacher and he thinks archologist prove the Bible is correct. I think archaeologists can find kingdoms and learn a lot about them and their trade partners. That information does not prove anything supernatural. The most important part of the Abraham story is the Sumerian records that became stories in the Bible. Next in importance is the movement of these concepts into Egypt. Another point of importance is the Hebrew transition from herders who shared everything in common to farmers who owed private property and who could fall into debt and sell themselves as servants for 7 years but could not be slaves because of their special relationship with God. With that history, we can see how the morality evolved and areas of serious conflict such as the trouble between Caine and Abel. I am saying archeology is not equal to fiction.

We can know something about how the Hebrews were organized and their movements because they kept written records, a skill learned in Sumer. I believe Abraham is as real as Aztec kings found in burial sites. I accept archeology as validating the history of what was. This does not validate a god walking in Eden, and the Sumerian story of a god making a man and woman out of mud. Does that make sense? Archology does not validate the supernatural, but it can check his story.

Quoting universeness

But, I am an atheist who does not think that any of the biblical characters were real.

You aren't into history, are you? We might like to know the Babylonian exile put Hebrews in Babylon where the Hebrews learned about using money. Persia made it possible for them to return to Jerusalem and Cyrus the Great gave them money to rebuild their temple because the dualism of Judaism and Zoroastrianism were so similar. We can validate this because people were recording their political agreements and histories, and even primitive tribes left evidence of their existence and movements.
However, the stories are not without bias and it takes a lot of digging to be sure which story is the most accurate.

Quoting Athena

What does it mean to be like "one of us" and to whom is that God speaking?

What it means is having knowledge and not dying. This is elaborated on in the story of the Tower of Babel where God's concern is that man will be able to do whatever he wills to do.

I take it he is speaking to the other gods. Note how in Genesis one notice the shift back and forth from the singular to the plural with regard to both man and god.

Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness ...

So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

Genesis 1:26-27)

Quoting Athena

You aren't into history, are you?

Yes I am, what point/judgement about me, are you trying to make by those words?

Quoting Athena

We can validate this because people were recording their political agreements and histories, and even primitive tribes left evidence of their existence and movements.
However, the stories are not without bias and it takes a lot of digging to be sure which story is the most accurate.

So yeah, we have to separate reliable evidence, and those ancients who wrote down lies and claimed they were writing truth. Evidence for the existence of Abraham is not enhanced by evidence that a town or city he was placed in existed, or that Babylon or Sumer existed and we know the names of some of their Kings etc and some of the events that may or may not have happened, in the exact way they were memorialised/reported. Archeology can certainly find artefact's from of a time or a place, and use them to infer or gather data, but archeology has not found any indicator whatsoever, that is very compelling evidence, that the biblical character of Abraham ever existed. Same with the biblical moses, jesus, the disciples, Paul etc etc. Was Jesus also an illiterate? Why are there no writings signed Jesus Christ or the Aramaic equivalent? We also have no evidence at all, that the god Zeus or the goddess Athena existed, even though we accept that the ancient Greeks and ancient Greece existed and we know some of their names and some of the events that may or may not have actually happened. You agree, yes?

Reply to universeness Or as skeptics like to remind us - New York is real. New York appears in Spiderman comics. This doesn't mean that Spiderman is real. :wink:

Reply to Tom Storm
Spiderman is not real!!!! :scream: Just as well that I decided to stop building that spidey holy place of worship in my garden. It's so disappointing when it turns out that there are no superheros, that give a f*** about us or understand how special we are, akin to how special many of us want to be made to feel, as often as we can make it happen. :lol: When will the human race move beyond such nonsense Tom?
I agree with sooooooo much of the content of @Athena's posts but I think that the ancient fables/stories she see's such value in have caused far more trouble than they were ever worth.
I even had a 'friend of a friend,' who is a religious education teacher, (who has became a regular member of my drinking group) recently say to me, when he was a little drunk, but still with all the depth of profundity that he could muster, that he had genuinely made a person to god deal with god that he would be spared death.
This is what unconfirmed rumours about the existence of god and those who are in touch with such, can do to the thinking of what seems to be, otherwise quite rational people.
I of course made the mistake of asking him, exactly what took place in this exchange with god. So I then had to listen for the next 20 minutes as he explained 'his dream that was a real encounter with god.' :roll: :death:

Quoting universeness

When will the human race move beyond such nonsense Tom?

We seem to be hard wired to worship authority figures, from deities to certain former presidents. This impulse seems to have a powerful hold but perhaps can be overcome with time. The god idea is something that has never made sense to me, even as a small child. So I am an inadequate atheist in a sense - I never found the notion of gods coherent, attractive or useful, even before I heard any of the arguments. I wish I could say I had a deconversion experience, but it never happened.

Quoting Tom Storm

So I am an inadequate atheist in a sense - I never found the notion of gods coherent, attractive or useful, even before I heard any of the arguments. I wish I could say I had a deconversion experience, but it never happened.

LOL

I wish I hadn't needed one.

Reply to Tom Storm
Same with me, I was never a theist, I was bemused and intrigued as a youngster about the issue.
As soon as I could analyse what the religious were throwing at me, I soon became an atheist and have increased my credence level regarding the atheist position ever since.
I also think that time and an ever increasing spread of education, are our best hopes our species has, to free ourselves from the more pernicious affects of all forms of religion and theosophism.

Reply to Fooloso4 Wait a minute. :scream: I never so profoundly realized the seriousness of this problem before. How do we have knowledge? If we believe we magically have knowledge then don't we have a serious problem? Such as believing God has favorite people because he blesses them and not others.

There is an important relationship between what we experience/learn and our moral judgment. If we do not understand that we go through life with false beliefs and wrong actions.

If Adam and Eve ingested a fruit that magically gave them knowledge why did it take so long to realize sickness and infections are spread by germs, a little piece of knowledge that has doubled our life expectancy? How about how our intellectual ability tends to improve with age? Like, should we go around the world giving everyone an IQ test to determine if some people are more affected by Adam and Eve eating the wrong fruit than others?

Logos and morals- logos is reason, the controlling force of the universe. A moral is understanding cause and effect (universal law, and good manners). Socrates thought we knew everything but when we are born we are in a state of forgetfulness. He saw education as a process of causing someone to remember what the soul already knows. I don't think that is exactly correct but it is better than thinking a fruit can give us knowledge and a god can curse people. Obviously in one belief system education can be harmful and in the other, education is what makes life better and improves our judgment.

That is not education for technology but education for good moral judgment. Our democracy and liberty depend that, not on a God, but on education for good moral judgment.

Quoting Athena

How do we have knowledge? If we believe we magically have knowledge then don't we have a serious problem?

The metaphor of the tree of knowledge is not intended to be an explanation, magical or otherwise. But the story does point to desire and vulnerability as leading to knowledge. Even before eating Eve saw that the fruit of the tree was desirable for gaining wisdom (3:6). They saw that they were naked and sewed together fig leaves to cover themselves. (3:7) This was the beginning of technical knowledge. But this attempt was not adequate. God made garments of skin for them (3:21). The problem of nakedness is that they were aware that they were vulnerable, exposed. They hid because they were naked and afraid. (3:10)

Desire also leads to sexual knowledge. It is interesting that woman's desire will be for her husband (3:16) but nothing is said about a husband's desire for his wife. For man knowledge is tied to the need to produce food from the ground. Agriculture.

Quoting Athena

Socrates thought we knew everything but when we are born we are in a state of forgetfulness.

The myth of anamnesis. I discuss it a bit in my thread on Plato's Phaedo.

Quoting universeness

You aren't into history, are you?
— Athena
Yes I am, what point/judgement about me, are you trying to make by those words?

I was expressing my delight that you enjoy history too.

We can validate this because people were recording their political agreements and histories, and even primitive tribes left evidence of their existence and movements.
However, the stories are not without bias and it takes a lot of digging to be sure which story is the most accurate.
— Athena
So yeah, we have to separate reliable evidence, and those ancients who wrote down lies and claimed they were writing truth. Evidence for the existence of Abraham is not enhanced by evidence that a town or city he was placed in existed, or that Babylon or Sumer existed and we know the names of some of their Kings etc and some of the events that may or may not have happened, in the exact way they were memorialised/reported. Archeology can certainly find artifacts from of a time or a place, and use them to infer or gather data, but archeology has not found any indicator whatsoever, that is very compelling evidence, that the biblical character of Abraham ever existed. Same with the biblical moses, jesus, the disciples, Paul etc etc. Was Jesus also an illiterate? Why are there no writings signed Jesus Christ or the Aramaic equivalent? We also have no evidence at all, that the god Zeus or the goddess Athena existed, even though we accept that the ancient Greeks and ancient Greece existed and we know some of their names and some of the events that may or may not have actually happened. You agree, yes?

I do believe evidence of towns is evidence of "his story". I think there is plenty of evidence of Troy, but that is not evidence of the reality of Greek gods. I understand the difficulty of separating fact from myth and I think archaeologists and related sciences do a good job of that. Geologists play a very important role in all this. Eden existed in the area of Iran where there were four rivers. Geologists believe they have found all 4 rivers and they have evidence of severe flooding and a very long drought. Then a return to good climate conditions returned the region to a habital place. Confirming the Sumerian story of Eden, but not proving the Sumerian goddess who made a man and woman from mud is a real Goddess.

In the Sumerian story, it is a river that ate the goddess' plants (flood) and she cursed the river to die (drought). Eve is Ninti- "the lady of the rib" and "the lady who makes live" but that play on words didn't work in Hebrew so Eve is made from a man's rib instead of a goddess who heals. Eden means "uncultivated plain", and Adam means "settlement on the plain", a return of people to this region when a fox gets the goddess to allow the river to live. The river asked for helpers to keep it in its banks and the goddess made a man and woman of mud. It is our duty to keep the river in its banks. We were made for a purpose. Many indigenous people have such stories of their creation and purpose to help nature.

universeness:archeology has not found any indicator whatsoever, that is very compelling evidence, that the biblical character of Abraham ever existed.

We do not need a birth certificate and fingerprints to know someone led the people from Ur to Egypt. His exact identity is unimportant to me because the story is important as a story of a tribe who followed a leader. We can learn something about the movement of these people and the possibility that they plagiarized Sumerian stories that were built on a story of climate change. Information that can help us separate fact from myth and help us understand not only the movement of the tribe but also something of their social order and reasoning for it. What gave their leader the authority to rule was heridity. Whoever Abraham was he was representative of the father. As before patriarchy, a female represented the mother.

universeness:Was Jesus also an illiterate?

Frigorifico:In the Bible Jesus reads and writes a couple of times. One is in Hebrew and the other times the language is not specified but it could be Greek

We are told Jesus hung around the rabbis digging for information, however the case for them educating the young to read is very weak. In a book about the history of education that I have, Jews didn't consider educating their children until they had contact with the Greeks and their sons (horror!) participated in the sporting events without clothes! That put on the pressure to make the son's Jewish before they left and joined with non-Jews. That brings us to the Wikipedia link.

Quoting Wikipedia

Education has been defined as, "teaching and learning specific skills, and also something less tangible, but more profound: the imparting of knowledge, positive judgement and well-developed wisdom. Education has as one of its fundamental aspects the imparting of culture from generation to generation (see socialization)".

While curriculum and texts for schools has been found in other areas of the ancient near east, no direct evidence—either literary or archaeological—exists for schools in ancient Israel.[1] There is no word for school in ancient (biblical) Hebrew,[1] the earliest reference to a "house of study" (bet hammidras) is found in the mid-Hellenistic period (2nd cent. BC) in the book of Ben Sira (51:23).[2]

However, the writing of the Bible as well as the variety of inscriptional material from ancient Palestine testifies to a relatively robust scribal culture that must have existed to create these textual artifacts.[1] The best unambiguous evidence for schools in ancient Israel comes from a few abecedaries and accounting practice texts found at sites such as Izbet Sarta, Tel Zayit, Kadesh Barnea, and Kuntillet ?Ajrud.[1] However, these were probably not schools in the traditional sense but rather an apprenticeship system located in the family.[1]

The total literacy rate of Jews in Israel in the first centuries c.e. was "probably less than 3%". While this may seem very low by today's standards, it was relatively high in the ancient world. If we ignore women (on the ground of their not participating in society), take into consideration children above the age of seven only, forget the far-away farmers and regard literacy of the non-educated people (e.g., one who cannot read the Torah but reads a bulla, that is: pragmatic literacy), then the literacy rate (adult males in the centers), might be even 20%, a high rate in traditional society.[3][4][5]

Quoting Fooloso4

The metaphor of the tree of knowledge is not intended to be an explanation, magical or otherwise. But the story does point to desire and vulnerability as leading to knowledge. Even before eating Eve saw that the fruit of the tree was desirable for gaining wisdom (3:6). They saw that they were naked and sewed together fig leaves to cover themselves. (3:7) This was the beginning of technical knowledge. But this attempt was not adequate. God made garments of skin for them (3:21). The problem of nakedness is that they were aware that they were vulnerable, exposed. They hid because they were naked and afraid. (3:10)

Of course, fig leaves don't make good clothes it would be a very stupid human who doesn't know that. And I strongly doubt that a metaphorical god made their clothes out of animal skins. How did the god kill the animal and treat the skins? Do you know how hard it is to cut and sew leather? Surely humans in cold regions learned to do that for themselves without the help of a god and that is possible only because we have desire and curiosity and we are made to resolve problems. Our survival depends on that. Isn't there something wrong with telling us what is good about us is bad and should be punished?

People in warm climates such as Hawaii and Africa have no problem exposing their bodies. If we cover any part of the body it is about protection, and not shame unless we learn to be ashamed. And you left out the snake who lured Eve into eating the fruit. Maybe this god and the snake had bodies or maybe they were just metaphors. For sure a person has to have a set of beliefs before anything in the Bible makes sense. Before the Bible can make sense we have to get past the problem of determining what is a metaphor and what is not. I think Greek philosophy can help us with that. Do you think less sophisticated people knew the difference between a metaphor and something that is real? Remember the witch hunts and fear of being possessed?

I see others who posted here said they never did accept the Christian mythology as truth. I was a believer and a part of that belief was fear of being possessed. I had a choice. Decide it was all a myth or begin killing people as I felt like a power was pushing me to do. It was a serious fight for my sanity and I am glad I chose to believe the Christian belief is false.

Quoting Fooloso4

The myth of anamnesis. I discuss it a bit in my thread on Plato's Phaedo.

I would rather go with the empiricist, but I am not closed to the possibility of life after death or reincarnation. I think I am very open-minded. However, when it comes to having good moral judgment, I am 100% in favor of educating people for good moral judgment and good citizenship.

Quoting universeness

I think that the ancient fables/stories she see's such value in have caused far more trouble than they were ever worth.

We have the same problem with Christianity. I most certainly do not believe gods ever existed and Socrates was horrified by what well-meaning parents taught their children when the repeated stories of the gods doing things that should not be done. Our stories are important to us but we need to select them carefully and not all books should be in a grade school library.

I am not sure where Fooloso4 stands on the Christian thing, but I am keenly aware of the importance of stories for helping us become better people and helping us live in groups much larger than a tribe. Without religion, there would not be civilizations. While I know Artemis is not a goddess I called upon her when I was alone and lost in the mountains. I don't care that this was just imagination. Calling upon her worked as well for me as a Christian's prayers work for the Christian. Incantations and prayers do work. There is a scientific explanation for why this is so. How we think plays an important part in how we feel and our ability to get things done.

Quoting Athena

fig leaves don't make good clothes it would be a very stupid human who doesn't know that.

You asked: "how do we have knowledge". The point is that knowledge of how to make clothes is something that begins with rudimentary attempts, not developed knowledge.

Quoting Athena

And I strongly doubt that a metaphorical god made their clothes out of animal skins.

Why would you doubt that in a metaphor of god making clothes out of animal skins god made their clothes out of animal skins?

Quoting Athena

How did the god kill the animal and treat the skins? Do you know how hard it is to cut and sew leather?

When you ask how we have knowledge I took it you were asking about human beings.

Quoting Athena

Surely humans in cold regions learned to do that for themselves without the help of a god ...

Right. Do you think their early attempts were as proficient as later attempts? In the story nothing is said about god helping them learn. He did for them what they were not yet able to do for themselves.

You answer your own question. They learned for themselves.

Quoting Athena

Isn't there something wrong with telling us what is good about us is bad and should be punished?

This is not the way I read the story. Knowledge is not simply good for us, or bad for us. Both are aspects of knowledge. It is not a matter of punishment but of consequences. Knowledge brings both benefits and harm.

Quoting Athena

People in warm climates such as Hawaii and Africa have no problem exposing their bodies.

People in warm climates have a problem with vulnerability. They must protect themselves. They must guard against being exposed to whatever it is that can harm them.

Quoting Athena

And you left out the snake who lured Eve into eating the fruit.

I wanted to avoid bringing up too much at the same time.

Quoting Athena

Maybe this god and the snake had bodies or maybe they were just metaphors.

As I read it the snake's body is part of the metaphor. Consider the way snakes move. In order to move right they move left then right then left. The movement is a metaphor for deviousness.

Quoting Athena

For sure a person has to have a set of beliefs before anything in the Bible makes sense.

So much is true in order for any story to make sense. Too often the problem is assuming the story matches the beliefs one brings to it.

Quoting Athena

Do you think less sophisticated people knew the difference between a metaphor and something that is real?

If you mean people from ancient cultures, I think they might be more sophisticated than you give them credit for. Understanding stories based on the dichotomy real and metaphorical is not very sophisticated.

Quoting Athena

Remember the witch hunts and fear of being possessed?

Some stories are more insightful than others.

Quoting Athena

I am not sure where Fooloso4 stands on the Christian thing,

I think Jesus was a real person, but that real person is not the person(s) created by the legends or the persons created by interpretation of the NT legends. The "Christian thing" has from the beginning been different things.

Quoting Athena

I was expressing my delight that you enjoy history too.

Ok.

Quoting Athena

While I know Artemis is not a goddess I called upon her when I was alone and lost in the mountains. I don't care that this was just imagination. Calling upon her worked as well for me as a Christian's prayers work for the Christian. Incantations and prayers do work. There is a scientific explanation for why this is so. How we think plays an important part in how we feel and our ability to get things done.

This is nothing more than personal placebo effects, imo.

Quoting Athena

I am not sure where Fooloso4 stands on the Christian thing

Many people hold their cards close.

Quoting Fooloso4

You asked: "how do we have knowledge". The point is that knowledge of how to make clothes is something that begins with rudimentary attempts, not developed knowledge.

Then why are we arguing about a god making a man and woman clothes?

At first, your well-developed ideas of what the deeper meaning of Biblical stories impressed me, but it has gotten way to far from the subject of this thread. Alexander the Great had followers who believed he was the son of a god. That false belief and many followers achieved a lot. So have people with other false beliefs of other gods achieved great things. I think we can conclude false beliefs can attract people who believe them and the person they follow will have the strength of armies. The leaders and the people can build pyramids or cross mountains and win wars.

I think we can say war is gods and gods are good for wars. We might think it a point of genius to lead large populations of believers against imagined evil powers. Throughout history, a few benefited more from this behavior more than the masses who followed the militant leader and those who labored to feed the armies and pay the taxes to pay for the wars.

I think we can call this social injustice and I think we can fault the belief that is at the root of this injustice.

Quoting Fooloso4

I think Jesus was a real person, but that real person is not the person(s) created by the legends or the persons created by the interpretation of the NT legends. The "Christian thing" has from the beginning been different things.

Why would you think Jesus was a real person and not Abraham? Neither would have had followers without the belief in a god and Alexander the Great would not have been so great if his followers didn't believe he was the son of a god. And US taxpayers would not be in so much debt for war experiences if the masses were not united by a false belief in God and evil. The role these beliefs play in the controversy of greatness can be interesting. What does belief have to do with the potential for greatness?

Some of those different things we can accomplish was completing religious colonies in the US and then expansion across the wilderness and the destruction of Native Tribes and almost the death of the Natives' understanding of reality and our relationship with nature. A wrong I do believe we have adequately acknowledged.

All this is bound up with capitalism in every interesting ways. The Shriners Hospital can do great things in the effort to save children's lives because of the people willing to donate to the cause. Should we passively let people die if that is the will of God, or should we take a moral stand and do what people working together can do?

Quoting universeness

This is nothing more that personal placebo effects, imo.

Thanks, I was struggling to come up with the right word. I would not demean the power of the placebo effect and our ability to use our minds to improve every aspect of our lives. I think we should acknowledge the power of incantations and prayer.

Quoting Athena

I think we should acknowledge the power of incantations and prayer.

But we must do so in a clear and careful manner. I think we should acknowledge the positive personal placebo affect that can be gained from a positive mental attitude. If your personal PMA is based on incantation and 'prayer' then sure, I see the connection you are making, but it is also very important to state that if you are praying to a god or your incantations are attempts to invoke supernatural intercession on your behalf, then it is very likely that you are a deluded fool, but still you may nonetheless, generate the positive placebo affect you needed.

Quoting Athena

Alexander the Great had followers who believed he was the son of a god.

What do you think this meant to them?

It is a term we find in the Hebrew Bible. It is a term used by Paul in much the same way. A son of God is someone, a human being, who holds a special favored place in God's eyes. Due to the influence of Greece and Rome it came to be understood as something more. A son of God was transformed into the only begotten son of God and of the same substance, homoousios.

Quoting Athena

Why would you think Jesus was a real person and not Abraham?

As far as I know, there is no evidence that Abraham was a real person. What difference do you think it makes?

Quoting Athena

Should we passively let people die if that is the will of God, or should we take a moral stand and do what people working together can do?

I agree. Arguments based on the will of God are incoherent.

Rather than argue about whether Abraham was a real person I think that it is within the stories that the substantive issues lie. The story of the sacrifice of Isaac, for example. It is held up as a shining example of faith, but I see it as an example of fanaticism.

Quoting Fooloso4

Rather than argue about whether Abraham was a real person I think that it is within the stories that the substantive issues lie. The story of the sacrifice of Isaac, for example. It is held up as a shining example of faith, but I see it as an example of fanaticism.

I agree that is fanaticism. I think the story was created to stop people from sacrificing their sons to a god. I think Hedrews told stories to make a point and I don't think they take them literally except for the comments of lineage which they take very seriously, and many of them may believe a god gave them land which is right up there with lineage. Wouldn't this be true of all tribal people?

The more literal meaning of Adam and Eve begins with Greek-influenced Christians and the reason for that is metaphysical and dependent on words and concepts the Romans did not have until Constantinople and the Nicene Creed. Christians were killing each other because they did not agree about Jesus being God or the son of a god before Greek words/concepts resolved the issue.

I believe lineage was very important to the Hebrews because lineage played a strong role in a person's position in the tribe. This would have increased when the Hebrews transitioned from herders sharing everything in common to farmers who individually owned land. For me, the importance of lineage plays a role in believing Abraham was a real person.

This link explains the controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis

I guess the question of the reality of Abraham belongs in this thread. Like who cares and why?

For me, it is a simple sociological fact that tribes had leaders who were chosen by followers, and the people could change who they followed, so a pharaoh or any other leader held power as long as the people believed this person was favored by the gods, but if a flood or a drought or invaders destroyed too much land and took too many lives the people would fault the leader and get a new one. Exactly as we do today. :rofl: Whatever, I don't think individuals and their names are that important. Why would it matter if it were Abraham people followed, or a person with a different name?

I think it matters that the origin of the story is Ur and they adopted Sumerian stories and moved towards Egypt. Why did they do that? I think it is interesting that at the time Abraham left Ur, the neighbors had started invading and put an end to Sumer. I think it is likely Abraham and his people were fleeing chaos and the destruction of their businesses. That is a little more believable than "God" told Abraham to leave.

Here we are with the argument of this thread. It was not a man possibly named Abraham who is responsible for the move, but warring neighbors and the destruction of Sumer. Yes, someone led the move but why were the people willing to move? The voice of God heard by one person, or the destruction of Sumer and the end of safety?

Quoting universeness

hen it is very likely that you are a deluded fool

But love, it doesn't matter. :grin: The placebo effect works and here is the problem with arguing that God does not exist with people who experience the blessing of that God every day.

Also, I think it is wise to be open-minded. As I called on Artemitris to help me get to civilization I was being open-minded allowing myself to feel protected and seek a safer situation. You know, we see what we are looking for. It might be best to not be too literal in believing what we believe or disbelieving. Creating space for the good to happen increases the chances of good happening.

What is the nature of the literally-minded person? :shade: When we close our minds and get too uptight about what we believe, it is fanatical, no matter what we believe.

Reply to wonderer1 How about considering it is as we believe it to be? We can experience a wonderful love or not.

Universeness cautions us to have good judgment and we don't want to be too fanatical either.

Quoting Athena

I think the story was created to stop people from sacrificing their sons to a god.

There may be some truth to that, but the story is not a prohibition against human sacrifice. If others are to be like Abraham it would be by not withholding their sons from sacrifice. (22:16) It was God who stays his hand and provides the ram. For Abraham to have made this substitution himself would have been to fail to demonstrate his faith and obedience.

Quoting Athena

I don't think they take them literally

This presents a slippery slope. Even if the story is not taken literally, does this mean that they would
believe that God does not speak to man, that the Law and Commandments do not come from God?

Quoting Athena

For me, the importance of lineage plays a role in believing Abraham was a real person.

I agree, but it is not simply a question of lineage but birthright. Cain is the firstborn of Adam and Eve, but the lineage goes through Enoch. Ismael was Abraham's first son, but Isaac inherits.

The eldest son has the birthright but time and again in the Hebrew Bible stories the younger son steals it. Esau was Isaac's firstborn but Jacob deceives his father and inherits. Brothers are often the source of division rather than unity.

Quoting Athena

How about considering it is as we believe it to be? We can experience a wonderful love or not.

I found 'the grass is greener' nature of Tom Storm's perspective and mine amusing. I'm not seeing how what you said is related.

May 2024 be a better duration for you Athena than any previous year in your existence!

Quoting Athena

But love, it doesn't matter. :grin: The placebo effect works and here is the problem with arguing that God does not exist with people who experience the blessing of that God every day.

This matters very much! For thee most important reason there is, and for a reason that you also hold as paramount, 'the truth!' It is impossible to experience the blessings of a non-existent. The problem that non-religious and anti-theistic people have, is simply that the god posit is currently unfalsifiable. That is the only hope that the theists have for the continuation of their woo woo.
All god candidates, remain utterly hidden and science cannot prove that there is absolutely no source intent, in the true origin story of our universe and a species such as us, that can generate meaning and purpose at the level we can demonstrate, which can have very significant impact on the local regions of space we can currently occupy. Humans never existed for the vast majority of the 13.8 billion years existence of the universe.

Quoting Athena

As I called on Artemitris to help me get to civilization I was being open-minded allowing myself to feel protected and seek a safer situation.

No, you were just trying to stay calm and carry on. Avoid panic in a scary situation and use your focus to think your way out. I also got lost in the Scottish hills once, with a companion, in bad weather. We had no equipment to stay in the hills overnight. We got back, almost 9 hours late, exhausted and confused, scrambling in the dark, with one small torch, losing its power. We learned to be better prepared. Nowadays, the GPS software on mobile phones, makes the chances of getting lost in the wilds, much more unlikely. Your 'Artemitris' appeal has been rendered even more unnecessary, by mobile phone tech, how's that for an example of science making god appeals more and more defunct?

Quoting Athena

Creating space for the good to happen increases the chances of good happening.

I agree, and the best way to do that is to do all we can to discover better and more robust ways, to protect human life against all scenarios that might destroy or damage it. Practical, logical, effective methodology, not appeals to non-existent sources of aid. The placebo effect is only useful for encouraging a PMA or positive mental attitude but it is a very limited and 'hit or miss' type methodology. It should only be used in desperation. It is pretty close to a 'if you are falling from a high building, you are as well to flap your arms, perhaps you will grab a flagpole on the way down,' act of desperation, just like 'oh please help me Artemitris!'

Quoting Athena

What is the nature of the literally-minded person? :shade: When we close our minds and get too uptight about what we believe, it is fanatical, no matter what we believe.

I am not suggesting being literally minded in all scenario's. But I am also saying that we should never, ever, ever value special pleading to gods as anything other that acts of sheer desperation and it is far far better to keep as calm as you can in difficult situations and use your rationale and whatever practical and logical skills you have to survive whatever threat you are facing.
In your scenario, planning your way back to civilisation and applying that plan, was much more useful and significant, than your self-comforting(placebo effect) appeal to a non-existent.

Quoting Fooloso4

Brothers are often the source of division rather than unity.

Are gods not a far bigger source of division rather than unity? Compared to 'brothers'?

Quoting universeness

Are gods not a far bigger source of division rather than unity?

Yes. But the issue is lineage and birthright.

See the discussion above about Moses and the god of their fathers : https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/864423

The story of Moses is a story of unification.

Reply to Fooloso4
Are we talking about the lineage and 'birthrights' (a far more controversial term) of real historical people or invented characters who appeared in ancient fables?
Do you think the Moses fable is the first story about unification in human history?
We have been exchanging and inventing such stories since our days as hunter gatherers.
The story of Spartacus is a story of unity as well, is it not? The unity of all Roman slaves, in common cause of overthrowing those who would enslave. Is it not the case that every group of humans who ever struggled against conquest or control by any other group of humans could be described under the title 'a story of unity?'
No doubt, some such stories are based on some real human events, that did actually happen, but had nothing to do with anything supernatural and were exaggerated and sensationalised in each new telling, depending on who was using the story and for what purpose.
There is no evidence of any significance at all, that the Moses character, as described in the bible, was ever a real person.
Is there any character from the bible that you believe 100% existed and did exactly what the bible describes they did?

Quoting universeness

Are we talking about the lineage and 'birthrights' (a far more controversial term) of real historical people or invented characters who appeared in ancient fables?

I am talking about the stories in the Hebrew Bible.

Birthright is controversial. The stories I mentioned are a rejection of the practice.

Quoting universeness

Do you think the Moses fable is the first story about unification in human history?

I don't.

Quoting universeness

We have been exchanging and inventing such stories since our days as hunter gatherers.

Yes. Stories told and heard along trade routes as well.

Quoting universeness

There is no evidence of any significance at all, that the Moses character, as described in the bible, was ever a real person.

I agree.

Quoting universeness

Is there any character from the bible that you believe 100% existed and did exactly what the bible describes they did?

No. I do not read the Bible stories as if they were history.

Reply to Fooloso4
Are you any flavour of theist sir? You do of-course, not have to answer, but I am just trying to confirm whether or not you are simply making academic/technical/philosophical points or you are supporting your own or the theistic worldview of others. Either or neither is ok with me, but I would just like a little clarification, if you are willing to provide such. I know we have exchanged before and you are well qualified in philosophy, but I can't remember if you have already declared yourself theist or atheist.

Quoting universeness

Are you any flavour of theist sir?

No.

Quoting universeness

I am just trying to confirm whether or not you are simply making academic/technical/philosophical points or you are supporting your own or the theistic worldview of others.

I am interested in the interpretation of texts. What these texts say about the gods is a reflection of what they say about man and In turn they have influenced how we have come to see ourselves. Genesis 1 says that God made man in their own image. I say that man makes gods in their own image.

But a theological discussion should also take into consideration the other root. Two texts to be considered are Plato's Euthyphro and Aristotle's Metaphysics. Both put philosophy above the claims of the theologians and do so by pointing to the limits of what we know, which falls short of knowledge of first things.

Another is the revolution of Modernity in the work of Bacon, Descartes, and others. Until quite recently all educated westerners read and knew the Bible. The theologians read it piously, the philosophers impiously. Theirs is a program for the perfectibility of man. To will without error. In other words, to make man into a god. What separates men and gods in Genesis is overcome.

Quoting universeness

I can't remember if you have already declared yourself theist or atheist.

I am pistically atheist and epistemically agnostic. Lacking knowledge I make no claims about gods but I am not uncertain in terms of what I believe and how I live.

Thank you for your clarifications, they really help me understand your general stance much more.

Quoting Fooloso4

Genesis 1 says that God made man in their own image. I say that man makes gods in their own image.

I could not agree more.

Quoting Fooloso4

I am interested in the interpretation of texts. What these texts say about the gods is a reflection of what they say about man and In turn they have influenced how we have come to see ourselves. Genesis 1 says that God made man in their own image. I say that man makes gods in their own image.

But a theological discussion should also take into consideration the other root. Two texts to be considered are Plato's Euthyphro and Aristotle's Metaphysics. Both put philosophy above the claims of the theologians and do so by pointing to the limits of what we know, which falls short of knowledge of first things.

Another is the revolution of Modernity in the work of Bacon, Descartes, and others. Until quite recently all educated westerners read and knew the Bible. The theologians read it piously, the philosophers impiously. Theirs is a program for the perfectibility of man. To will without error. In other words, to make man into a god. What separates men and gods in Genesis is overcome.

A very well formed, explained and balanced description imo.

Quoting Fooloso4

I am pistically atheist and epistemically agnostic. Lacking knowledge I make no claims about gods but I am not uncertain in terms of what I believe and how I live.

Live long and prosper! We need such thinking and thinkers to thrive and such as the MAGA style of thinking and thinkers to 'evolve' a little more, imo.

Reply to Fooloso4 I do not disagree with anything you said but find an issue with the connection between inheritance and family position determining one's lot in life. That is important to this thread of who has a chance of being great and who does not.

My head is screaming about what we know of redlining and the whole prejudice and property issue. We are living with a God who makes this possible and I think we need to do more about this. Democracy is supposed to give everyone equal opportunity and this begins with education but millions of people did not and do not have equal opportunity because we do not have equal education. People of color and Asians did not have equal property rights, equal educations, or equal opportunity and instead of pegging this as a racial problem, we need to peg it as a social organization problem in our democracy. If our nation, our democracy, is to be Great we need to follow the rules of democracy.

One of my favorite quotes is this one “Unless we’re motivated by principle in our voting, we walk into a mirrored echo chamber, where there’s no coherence,” Kucinich That is not possible if we do not learn the principles and reasoning of democracy. Living by principles requires a lot of maturity and depends on education to do so.

This is completely different from religion and being as children who obey a Father in heaven. As you said there are serious problems with living with stories about people and God. Exactly how should we interpret those stories? A self-evident truth is one we can know empirically and Bible stories can not be checked as we can check self-evident truth. There may be some value to being as children, but democracy requires adults.

Quoting universeness

No, you were just trying to stay calm and carry on. Avoid panic in a scary situation and use your focus to think your way out. I also got lost in the Scottish hills once, with a companion, in bad weather. We had no equipment to stay in the hills overnight. We got back, almost 9 hours late, exhausted and confused, scrambling in the dark, with one small torch, losing its power. We learned to be better prepared. Nowadays, the GPS software on mobile phones, makes the chances of getting lost in the wilds, much more unlikely. Your 'Artemitris' appeal has been rendered even more unnecessary, by mobile phone tech, how's that for an example of science making god appeals more and more defunct?

Right, I was just trying to stay calm but the is the goddess Artemis who helped me do that, the same as Jesus helps a Christian. It does not matter what gods we call upon, they all help us in the same way. I think this is a truth we need to share. One reason this point is important is to realize the futility of arguing with a Christian or Muslim about the existence of God because in their minds they experience the power of this God every day. They experience God as surely as I experienced Artmetris helping me get to safety. :lol: A GPS can not help us out of our life problems as well as a god can. But in some situations, a GPS is more helpful.

I agree, and the best way to do that is to do all we can to discover better and more robust ways, to protect human life against all scenarios that might destroy or damage it. Practical, logical, effective methodology, not appeals to non-existent sources of aid. The placebo effect is only useful for encouraging a PMA or positive mental attitude but it is a very limited and 'hit or miss' type methodology. It should only be used in desperation. It is pretty close to a 'if you are falling from a high building, you are as well to flap your arms, perhaps you will grab a flagpole on the way down,' act of desperation, just like 'oh please help me Artemitris!'

Here we have to be careful. I don't think life would be as much fun if we didn't have our problems. For darn sure the young do not want to listen to older people who desperately want to impart their wisdom gained through experience. The young want to experience life and figure out how to resolve their problems on their own. Someone asked Jesus why he spoke in parables and he explained people will listen to stories. Parables and folk tales have been passed down for many centuries because even the young will listen to them and learn the moral of the story. We might want to pay attention to that wisdom when we consider making textbooks to teach children how to read. The old reading books taught children more than the ability to read.

I am not suggesting being literally minded in all scenario's. But I am also saying that we should never, ever, ever value special pleading to gods as anything other that acts of sheer desperation and it is far far better to keep as calm as you can in difficult situations and use your rationale and whatever practical and logical skills you have to survive whatever threat you are facing.
In your scenario, planning your way back to civilisation and applying that plan, was much more useful and significant, than your self-comforting(placebo effect) appeal to a non-existent.

I think you are missing the power of a story. It does not have to be a god. If can be the story of "The Little That Could", or "The "Red Hen" or the puppy who learned how to be brave. IT SHOULD NOT BE, stories that teach our children ideas we do not want them to have, such as "Captain Underpants" stories about a school principal wearing only his underwear and a cape. Those books, as many books in school libraries today, are disrespectful. While I was volunteering in a school library I listened to teacher reading a book that was nothing but socially inappropriate behavior, because the jerk thought it was funny. He must have felt my outrage as I glared at him because he began explaining those things are funny because they are socially inappropriate. If I were a parent with a child in school, I would be furious if my child came home and did inappropriate things to be funny because that is what my child in school. Think Socrates and his outrage about the harm that could be done by some stories of the gods.

Stories are powerful and they can bring out the best in us or the worst. That is what schools need to consider when picking out books for the library not just pleasing the children by feeding them junk food and junk literature. I feel so sorry today for parents having the schools undermind their efforts for their children to be mentally and physically healthy. As one teacher told me when I questioned why the library had junk literature and not the classics, she said that is what the children will read. :gasp: The job of the school is to teach the children better.

And my walks along the river on a perfect are not desperate moments. I love being overwhelmed by the beauty all around me and expressing my appreciation to the Mother Goddess. Like some people are racist because of the stories they tell themselves, you are prejudiced against the gods because of the stories you tell yourself such as a person has to be desperate to think of a god. I am glad this came up because our feelings can be love and appreciation. We can love the tree spirits and hug them. I think I have a different experience of life than you do. Lucky for me I live in Oregon where there are many tree huggers. :grin: Live is more than empirical and material things. It is also how we feel about it all, and how we feel depends on our stories. Everything I have said this morning is about our stories and feelings. That is real but not material.

Quoting wonderer1

How about considering it is as we believe it to be? We can experience a wonderful love or not.
— Athena

I found 'the grass is greener' nature of Tom Storm's perspective and mine amusing. I'm not seeing how what you said is related.
3 days ago

:chin: It is as we think it is. I am acknowledging people have different experiences and there is not one truth that makes all others false.

I do not understand what you mean by 'the grass is greener' nature of Tom Storm's perspective.

Great men and women make big changes because imagine things could be different and they make them so. Often this requires many followers. Humans can imagine what can be and make it so. That means life is more than matter. How do some have such vision?

Quoting Athena

?Fooloso4 I do not disagree with anything you said but find an issue with the connection between inheritance and family position determining one's lot in life.

Yes, this is a serious problem. Do you have any solutions?

Well, that is a very old problem with the eldest son being in the best position to inherit the family's wealth and the younger sons relying on Vikinging.

Fortunately trading increased the opportunities for wealth and industrialization increased opportunities even more. Eventual education plus new technology increased opportunities and national wealth. Merit hiring was practiced by the ancient Greeks which led to a revolt with the Hebrews who wanted to maintain their system of jobs depending on heritage, not merit.

Wikipedia:The Maccabean Revolt (Hebrew: ??? ?????????) was a Jewish rebellion led by the Maccabees against the Seleucid Empire and against Hellenistic influence on ...
?Maccabees · ?Judas Maccabeus · ?Battle of Elasa · ?Seleucid army

Quoting Athena

Merit hiring was practiced by the ancient Greeks which led to a revolt with the Hebrews who wanted to maintain their system of jobs depending on heritage, not merit.

According to the article you cited:

Seleucid King Antiochus IV Epiphanes launched a massive campaign of repression against the Jewish religion in 168 BCE.

What is the source of the claim that the revolt was in response to a threat to their system of jobs depending on heritage, not merit?

Quoting Fooloso4

What is the source of the claim that the revolt was in response to a threat to their system of jobs depending on heritage, not merit?

Here us one explanation of the power struggle. There are differing opinions about why there was a conflict. But for sure there was a power struggle.

Quoting wikipedia

In the 2nd century BCE, Judea lay between the Ptolemaic Kingdom (based in Egypt) and the Seleucid Empire (based in Syria), monarchies which had formed following the death of Alexander the Great. Judea had initially come under Ptolemaic rule but fell to the Seleucids around 200 BCE. Judea at that time had been affected by the Hellenization initiated by Alexander the Great. Some Jews, mainly those of the urban upper class, notably the Tobiad family, wished to dispense with Jewish law and to adopt a Greek lifestyle. According to historian Victor Tcherikover, the main motive for the Tobiads' Hellenism was economic and political.[10] The Hellenizing Jews built a gymnasium in Jerusalem, competed in international Greek games, "removed their marks of circumcision and repudiated the holy covenant".[11]

Quoting wikipedia

The author of the First Book of Maccabees regards the Maccabean revolt as a rising of pious Jews against the Seleucid king (who had tried to eradicate their religion) and against the Jews who supported him. The author of the Second Book of Maccabees presents the conflict as a struggle between "Judaism" and "Hellenism", concepts which he coined.[16] Most modern scholars argue that King Antiochus reacted to a civil war between traditionalist Jews in the Judean countryside and Hellenized Jews in Jerusalem,[17][18] though the king's response of persecuting the religious traditionalists was unusual in antiquity, and was the immediate provocation for the revolt.[19] According to Joseph P. Schultz, modern scholarship "considers the Maccabean revolt less as an uprising against foreign oppression than as a civil war between the orthodox and reformist parties in the Jewish camp",[20] but John J. Collins writes that while the civil war between Jewish leaders led to the king's new policies, it is wrong to see the revolt as simply a conflict between Hellenism and Judaism, since "[t]he revolt was not provoked by the introduction of Greek customs (typified by the building of a gymnasium) but by the persecution of people who observed the Torah by having their children circumcised and refusing to eat pork."[19]

Interestingly, Christianity is also about the conflict between orthodox Judaism and Hellenism.

One more thought, what is happening in Israel and Palestine today is the same old Jewish conflict that makes some Jews as easy to get along with as Christians and some Jews being passionate about elementing any who interfere with their claim to absolute power.

Orthodox anything is bad for peace. Jew, Christian, or Moslem. We make a huge mistake in speaking of these religious groups as though they are not divided and in conflict with themselves. Antisemitism my ass! As some Muslims are peaceful people some Christians and some Jews are peaceful people, and some of each are the enemies of peace on earth and we need to be honest about this reality.

Quoting Athena

As some Muslims are peaceful people some Christians and some Jews are peaceful people, and some of each are the enemies of peace on earth and we need to be honest about this reality.

The problem, I think aptly identified by Sam Harris, is the ideology, not the people. There are varying degrees of commitment, but the further from a true commitment we get, the less problematic things become. Which is a serious indictment of the ideology, rather than elements of human nature. You can get almost every positive aspect from religion (particularly the Abrahamics) without it, or at least without the type of commitment religion requires.
Conversely, you can't randomly get the type of despicable behaviours we see out of the depths of religion (particularly hte Abrahamics) without that kind of commitment, and in most cases, without that particular ideology.

I've a love/hate (take those words very lightly) relationship with those who 'adhere' to a religion by bastardizing it - they avoid the negatives, but also avoid a genuine commitment.

Isaac Kramnick:In place of this false unique

You seem to be asking us to choose between a post modernist view of the self or a "false" view of the self.

Is that not akin to seeking my opinion regarding which cookie is better, the good one on the right or the terrible tasting one on the left.

Why would I choose the "false" view?

Quoting AmadeusD

The problem, I think aptly identified by Sam Harris, is the ideology, not the people. There are varying degrees of commitment, but the further from a true commitment we get, the less problematic things become. Which is a serious indictment of the ideology, rather than elements of human nature. You can get almost every positive aspect from religion (particularly the Abrahamics) without it, or at least without the type of commitment religion requires.
Conversely, you can't randomly get the type of despicable behaviours we see out of the depths of religion (particularly hte Abrahamics) without that kind of commitment, and in most cases, without that particular ideology.

I've a love/hate (take those words very lightly) relationship with those who 'adhere' to a religion by bastardizing it - they avoid the negatives, but also avoid a genuine commitment.

Why not the people and the psychological and sociological causes of their behavior? As I see the mess in Israel and Palestine millions of people of just trying to live their lives and a handful of people have brought them to war.

The leader of Isreal was elected. Why did he win the election? What about all those who did not vote for him and do not approve of his behavior? I don't think ideology is the point of power but male egos.

Billy Graham made a terrible mess of things when he bonded Evangelicals and the US government. Now we have people who think God favors Trump and their Christian mission is to get Trump into the seat of power so he can do what God wants him to do. I don't know if that is an ideological problem?

The Muslims who are in favor of war are the same as the Jews and Christians who like to believe they are doing to the will of God whenever they engage in war. Worshiping the God of Abraham and David, may be an ideological problem? But the people who all worship the same God do not agree on the ideology. I sure wish we could resolve this problem and change the behavior.

Quoting Athena

Why not the people and the psychological and sociological causes of their behavior? As I see the mess in Israel and Palestine millions of people of just trying to live their lives and a handful of people have brought them to war.

Your final sentence can be true, regardless of my assertion - and I agree - but in reference to those who have "brought them to war": Because the crucial difference between analogous situations in which people are not committing theocratic war crimes, and this one, is that the ideology doesn't demand it in those others, whereas in this one, it does. That's why i noted its not an indictment of human nature. People react to their environments - granted. But people are only driven to the type of irrational acts of war, with the addition of a commanding ideology. WRT other Abrahamics, Judaism is famously amenable to update and has had many. Christianity, partially the same, but partially the Enlightenment has acted as a shield against runaway Christianity for the most part. We have nothing similar for Islam given it's self-imposed exile from Western thought.

Quoting Athena

I don't think ideology is the point of power but male egos

You realise Judaism is based almost solely on the teachings and exemplars of patriarchs, right? I don't have much more than an eyeroll here, tbh. Such a tired way of assessing complex ideological threads. No offense meant, that's just my take.

Quoting Athena

The Muslims who are in favor of war are the same as the Jews and Christians who like to believe they are doing to the will of God whenever they engage in war.

Except, the latter aren't actually doing that any longer, almost universally. Their ideology has been amenable to update and has removed the irrational, self-defeating policies of the 'Angry God' origins of their faith. They are not promised Paradise for killing innocents, and themselves.

Quoting AmadeusD

t partially the Enlightenment has acted as a shield against runaway Christianity for the most part.

You are stirring my thoughts! However, I am a little explosive on this subject, :rage: That emoticon needs to be jumping up and down and throwing a tantrum. That being expressed, I will take a few deep breaths and see if I can be rational. :lol:

Right now we have run away Christianity and a serious lack of knowledge of what the Enlightenment has to do with democracy and all the brakes that were put on going to war. I don't know if I can explain this without a pack of cigarettes and I quit smoking over 30 years ago. Stupid emotions. Hey, my doctor gave me a little pill that may help. Hold onto those thoughts. I will be back I am going to see f if I can boost my reasoning and reduce my emotional reaction.

Reply to Athena fair enough, and I am extremely appreciative of the humility there, even if it isn't warranted :P

Quoting Athena

Right now we have run away Christianity

This should be very, very fun....

I look forward to a thoughtful response!

Quoting AmadeusD

the Enlightenment has acted as a shield against runaway Christianity for the most part. We have nothing similar for Islam given it's self-imposed exile from Western thought.

I have been reading about the war issue and see this is a very complex subject.

Quoting Wikipedia

Believe me, dear Sir: there is not in the British empire a man who more cordially loves a union with Great Britain than I do. But, by the God that made me, I will cease to exist before I yield to a connection on such terms as the British Parliament propose; and in this, I think I speak the sentiments of America.

—?Thomas Jefferson, November 29, 1775[10]

Quoting Boston National Historical Park

During the late 1800s and early 1900s, the Anti-Imperialist League used Faneuil Hall to protest America’s growing imperialism. The league argued against militarization and the creation of an overseas American Empire and asserted that the principles the United States had been founded upon needed to extend to foreign policy as well.

What are those principles and why is Jefferson in such a huff?

Quoting Wikipedia

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."[62]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

All this talk is talk of nature and human rights are a totally different way of thinking about humanity and human rights and the best way to organize ourselves than how the Holy Roman Empire presented reality and God's will. What is our nature and what does a god have to do with how we organize ourselves and behave? The Creator and Nature's God is not the God of Abraham. The enlightenment is about empirical thinking, not being a subject to authority that must be obeyed.

Islam's separation from Western thought? How does that work? Islam is a blend of Judaism and Christianity with the same god and prophets. While Christian Europe was in the Dark Ages, Muslims were advancing and thanks to them, we were able to retrieve our Greek and Roman past that had been preserved in writing but had no value to the Christians who struggled in fear of losing their souls and immortality, and so subjected themselves to Church and the King's authority. To this day Evangelicals fear that unfamiliar information could be Satan and should not be trusted, so do not wear a mask or get a vaccine but turn against the government based on empirical information because it is the handmaiden of the Devil trying to steal our souls. :brow:

Oh man, the religious issue makes a mess out of everything. I am trying to get back to being our own authority instead of subjects, and how this extends to international relationships and the ideology of anti-imperialism. Like the original Star Trek, we don't engage with others unless asked and it is not our mission in life to go around the world making everyone Christians. But if they want to learn better farming technology, we gladly share that. The Enlightenment not religion and being subjects to authority.

Quoting Athena

The Creator and Nature's God is not the God of Abraham. The enlightenment is about empirical thinking, not being a subject to authority that must be obeyed.

Yes.....quite right. Unsure what the implication for our exchange is here. My points essentially rest on this.

Quoting Athena

What are those principles and why is Jefferson in such a huff?

self-determination, in large part.

Quoting Athena

Islam's separation from Western thought? How does that work?

By it being entirely separated from Western Thought from about 1100AD. By religious warfare, ironically.
We stole from Arab scholars, for sure, but that doesn't mean our thought are intertwined systems. We nicked sources and ran away with them. Islam stayed put, and is still there today, for the most part. Developing algebra isn't relevant to what we're discussing here.

Quoting Athena

To this day Evangelicals fear that unfamiliar information could be Satan and should not be trusted, so do not wear a mask or get a vaccine but turn against the government based on empirical information because it is the handmaiden of the Devil trying to steal our souls. :brow:

Whcih harms only them. They do not have an ideological commitment to harming others.

Quoting AmadeusD

But people are only driven to the type of irrational acts of war, with the addition of a commanding ideology.

How about they enter war because of a lack of principles and moral thinking? The child interprets "Thou shalt not kill". to mean what it says. The full-grown Christian rationalizes the word should be "murder" because there are times when killing is a good thing. Or we can go the other way- sure we can crush little countries and then rob them of their resources to cover the cost of the war, but in the long run this can escalate war around the world and severely damage our relationship with the world increasing the need to have a bigger more expensive military force. Moral thinking does not stop at defining and accomplishing goals, it considers cause and effect long into the future. It is sad the media left us ignorant of the neo-cons who wanted military control of the Middle East and what Bush and Cheney had to do with the neo-cons and the invasion of Iraq long before 911. What was the ideology that made that invasion okay?

Quoting Athena

What was the ideology that made that invasion okay?

Imperialism.

Quoting Athena

How about they enter war because of a lack of principles and moral thinking?

Due to a commanding ideology replacing those faculties... They are thinking morally, but not your moral system. Its teleogical divine command theory.

I'm really unsure where this response has anything at all to do with what i'm trying to get across.

Quoting AmadeusD

Yes.....quite right. Unsure what the implication for our exchange is here. My points essentially rest on this.

I am not pleased by my failure to put all my thoughts into linear form and clarify what one thought has to do with another, but if we have an agreement about the contrast between Christian thinking and the Enlightenment, maybe things can start making more sense. Those are two totally different understandings of reality. Understanding that difference is understanding it extends to a moral reasoning difference. Empirical thinking is good for moral judgment. I am not sure how good religious moral thinking is.

Here is a thought I don't know how to get into the discussion. European countries were almost constantly in a war. Like thinking a God has favorite people and will protect them in war while He weakens the enemy, maybe problematic thinking? Believing when people win a duel or a war, that proves God favors them, might be problematic thinking?

The whole belief system may be problematic and empirical thinking might result in better morality? What is the good?

Oh yes, self-determination! I think we are giving each other and our young much more space for self-determination and here I cringe and turn around. When I hear of young people killing themselves and the role the internet plays in this, I think we need to limit self-determination and at least do more to protect our children. But I see this as next to impossible because we don't have shares values and agreements. Our morality is not keeping pace with technology.

I would love to share a good drink and continue this discussion but it is time for me to run. I promise I will keep thinking and return. What might we instill in our children before we set them free with self-determination?

Quoting AmadeusD

teleogical divine command theory.

I had to look up "teleological divine command theory". Like I knew that thinking has been behind the more aggressive military behavior of the US. Bill Graham did such a great Christmas about how God wants us to send our sons and daughters to fight in Iraq that I almost enlisted myself and I am strongly opposed to that military action and Christianity. But I didn't know this is a defined theory. Reading a name for it and the explanation still is shocking to me. How horrifying that humans can think a God wants them to fight wars, so they engage in war.

Come on you are very knowledgeable what do you think of the Greek and Roman gods of war? I love that the men of Athens did not believe Alexander the Great was the son of a god but they said, "If he wants to be a god, let him be a god". Of all the stupid things to believe, in this day and age. Believing it is a god of war we should follow is a bit horrifying isn't it? :scream:

Okay, and we are back to the great controversy. No man can win a war alone, but if they are charismatic the people are superstitious enough to believe their leader is a god or chosen by God, this leader can lead his people to war and win. It has gotten my attention that men who have been called Great are men of war. Why is that! How can we believe such a person is a god or chosen by God, in this day and age?

We were anti-imperialistic. That is a real choice and democratic principles are anti-imperialistic. For a long time, I have thought Christianity was the cause of our warring history. Believing we do terrible things because it is our evil nature instead of believing a false belief is the problem, distresses me a lot! What do you think?

Quoting AmadeusD

By it being entirely separated from Western Thought from about 1100AD. By religious warfare, ironically.
We stole from Arab scholars, for sure, but that doesn't mean our thought are intertwined systems. We nicked sources and ran away with them. Islam stayed put, and is still there today, for the most part. Developing algebra isn't relevant to what we're discussing here.

Oh, oh I love your statement BUT algebra, or math in general, is relevant to this discussion. Man, I need a better emoticon . See me excitingly jumping up and down and screaming what math has to do with everything I say about democracy and morals.

Empirical thinking, give me proof. Math is at the foundation of empirical thinking and proofs. This is what separated the Greeks from the rest of the world and replaced the gods with logos, reason, the controlling force of the universe. It is all about math, the whole universe, and everything we do. Just because people don't know, does not mean it is not so.

Please bear with me and give math some thought. This link to math quotes may help you realize what math has to do with everything we value and its connection with morals being a matter of cause and effect and also the very reason some believed democracy, rule by the people, is possible and even superior to a God-appointed king. https://www.prodigygame.com/main-en/blog/math-quotes/

Quoting Athena

Bill Graham did such a great Christmas about how God wants us to send our sons and daughters to fight in Iraq that I almost enlisted myself and I am strongly opposed to that military action and Christianity.

Interesting. Quoting Athena

How horrifying that humans can think a God wants them to fight wars, so they engage in war.

It doesn't really shock me. Consider: If any of those theories are true, ignoring them is the highest possible level of failure in life. That potential failure scares a lot of people into action. Best i can tell, large amounts of religious conversion (i include childhood indoctrination here) is scare-tactic.

Quoting Athena

Believing it is a god of war we should follow is a bit horrifying isn't it?

I would be horrified if it weren't so normalised :grimace: . It also seems to not quite require the intensity i outlined above. It seems that just some charismatic guy can have the same effort on people I would consider perhaps slightly of weaker mind (than what, i'm unsure.. It just can't find a better phrase).

Quoting Athena

No man can win a war alone, but if they are charismatic the people are superstitious enough to believe their leader is a god or chosen by God, this leader can lead his people to war and win.

Bingo. And fear of failure, and the comfort of a leader who is 'sure to win' is extremely attractive, I think.

Quoting Athena

Believing we do terrible things because it is our evil nature instead of believing a false belief is the problem, distresses me a lot! What do you think?

Well, I think it's going to be a mixture of many, many, many things. A somewhat uneducated population being charmed by a very aggressive but eloquent leader may result in society-wide acts you'd consider Evil, but it's hard to consider those people evil.
In war, though, it's hard not to think they're evil. Im unsure why. That said, though, I do think a 'false belief', though not necessarily cosmic, is probably the reason for almost all purposefully-harmful behaviour (i.e not contingently, or accidentally harmful).

Quoting Athena

algebra, or math in general, is relevant to this discussion.

I vehemently disagree.

Quoting Athena

Math is at the foundation of empirical thinking and proofs.

Imo, false. Math is at the basis of mathematical proofs. Empirical proofs come from observation alone. That seems to be within the definitions. Feel free to parse out what you're meaning here...

Quoting Athena

It is all about math, the whole universe, and everything we do. Just because people don't know, does not mean it is not so.

That you see it so, doesn't make it so either :snicker: I am just reaching the end of The Critique of Pure Reason and so these things are very much in my thought right now so perhaps im unusually resistant.

Reply to AmadeusD

I screwed up and lost a couple of hours of arguments about reason and morality and I really don't have time right now to do all that again. Until we have a argreement on what math has to do with proofs and empirical thinking, continuing may be futile so I don't mind losing all my work and starting over again. Your last argument seems the most important, so I will focus on that. I really look forward to continuing but getting my paperwork done has to be my priority or I won't get paid.

Did you read the math quotes?

Reply to Athena Just so.

I am already aware of the vast majority of those quotes. I'm really quite unsure what you wanted me to gain from them, other than that mathematicians can sometimes be poetical.

As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.
— Albert Einstein

This one seems to support my notion :P

Okay . I don't agree with you but I don't have time to argue this morning. I think math is the language of God and there is not rock evidence of that, so it is more of a poetical notion. I am not sure Pythagorus should get credit for the proof of a triangle, but a math book I once read said Egyptians were well aware of triangles but did not have a concept of a proof making the notion of a triangle universal. I think the difference here is the concrete triangle and the abstract triangle. Which is more real, the many imperfect triangles or the prefect one- Plato.

In my fuzzy mind is a notion that the drive to find proofs is a sharp contrast with mythological explanations and that this difference is what separate the Athenians from the rest of the world. We see that difference coming up in math and medicine. Not that the rest of the world did not have medicine but their approach to it was different. The Chinese notion of chi has proven very useful but it is not at all like believing our health depends on our fluids.

The bigger issue being one of how we think and that is important to our understanding of morals as a matter of cause and effect, or a mythological notion of morals. I am good because a god told us this is the way to behave, and how to treat our slaves. Verses, if I don't get this right, things will go wrong. And it is "if I don't get things right, things will go wrong, that is vital to morals and democracy.

The link you gave us is great. I have listened to his explanations before and I highly respect this ideas.

Ouch, I am out of time. :cry: but I have to say, the explanation of the importance of education and voting is great.

Quoting Athena

Okay . I don't agree with you but I don't have time to argue this morning. I think math is the language of God and there is not rock evidence of that, so it is more of a poetical notion.

Fair enough. I find the concept of God incoherent, so I guess that explains the daylight between us there :P

Quoting Athena

Egyptians were well aware of triangles but did not have a concept of a proof making the notion of a triangle universal

As i understand it, this is true for many pre-Pythagorean cultures. Though, it's worth noting it seems like Pythagoras' school may have been the source of 'his' insights, rather than the man himself.

Quoting Athena

The Chinese notion of chi has proven very useful

For? Not an indictment - Just wondering where you see the utility. Given it's almost entirely absent from both psychological and physical medicine I'm hoping for a neat story about its import :)

Quoting Athena

The link you gave us is great.

Which link, sorry? Hope that doesn't come acorss totally aloof lol

It is such a pleasure to converse with you that I regreet not having more time.

Thanks for giving a pass on my use of the word, God. I think some theoretical thinkers have argued God is beyond our comprehension. The religious rule that Christians love to break but Muslims firmly adhere to, is we are not to make an image of God. We are not to think of a god as a being, like Zeus but obviously, that is what Christians do and by deifying Jesus they have a very personal God that meets a human need to be loved, cared for, and protected.

How about if we think of god as beyond our comprehension instead of a person with supernatural powers? That might clean up a lot of religious problems. When I say math is the language of God, I am poking at the notion that a personal god spoke with his favorite people and not everyone else. And I also mean we should not be too sure of what we think we know. However, if we can say it with math then we might pay attention and explore what the math tells us. We must stay awake to learn the logos, the reason why things are as they are and can we change this or not.

For sure Pythagoras's school was a source of discovered knowledge! Professors learn a lot from their students. Keep in mind, mathematically, the question is more important than the solution. With the right question, we open the door to discovery and the answer closes it. You are a pleasure because you make me think about what I think and because you do so without putting me on the defensive, I am free to think about what I think and can change it without feeling ashamed for being wrong before I knew more.

The best proof of chi is acupuncture. The American Medical Association refused to accept acupuncture because even though they witnessed that it works, a person can have surgery without pain when acupuncture is used, but they did not know why. Remember the question is the most important thing. With the question of why acupuncture works,a second system of pain messages was discovered and with that chi was proven. Here is an explanation of chi.



Keeping in mind the most important part of thinking is the question, and you want the fun of watching a demonstration of chi here is the link I found https://www.google.com/search?q=demonstration+of+chi+in+martial+arts&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS926US926&oq=demonstration+of+chi+in+marcial&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqCQgBECEYChigATIGCAAQRRg5MgkIARAhGAoYoAEyCQgCECEYChigAdIBCjIxMDgwajBqMTWoAgCwAgA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

I think I goofed. I looked back and didn't see the post I was talking about so it could been a discussion in a different forum. I will check that forum. Found it. This comedian is worth our attention.
https://politicalorphanage.libsyn.com/

Quoting Athena

How about if we think of god as beyond our comprehension instead of a person with supernatural powers?

I understand what you're getting at, but that category is far too broad to have a name. What aspect of 'beyond our comprehension' are you pointing to? Anything beyond our comprehension? Seems a bit of a McGuffin.

Quoting Athena

We must stay awake to learn the logos, the reason why things are as they are and can we change this or not

Isn't this the entire thrust of philosophical thinking? What's the special occasion in this case?

Quoting Athena

You are a pleasure because you make me think about what I think and because you do so without putting me on the defensive

I am very glad to hear that - I feel the same. Being wrong is really helpful for me, too!

Quoting Athena

Remember the question is the most important thing. With the question of why acupuncture works,a second system of pain messages was discovered and with that chi was proven. Here is an explanation of chi.

I truly, seriously do not think there is anything to support this position.

Could you please present me with unbiased, peer-reviewed work that shows that 'chi' is real? Having been ensconsed in new-age groups and thinking for a decade or more, I did look into Qi very deeply because i 'bought' it at the time. It seems to me there is literally nothing, anywhere at all, that can be trusted to legitimate that concept. Would be very much open to something which shows - without ideological investment - something reaosnable about it. While I'm, not ale to run the video right now (at work) from what I know of him, Jesse Enkamp is a typical McDojo internet talking head with very little in the way of sensible takes. Have run in to him/his work around Jiu Jitsu many times over the last few years and its routinely been shown as nonsense designed to make money.

If not, my bad.

Quoting Athena

I think great leaders ride on a wave that is created by the circumstances of the moment. I think we should be paying more attention to the masses and what is driving them. Why are so many clinging to a tribe, instead of their own comprehension of the good?

Did you know Tolstoi and Dostoyevsky had an entire discussion about whether great men were great or simply people at the right time at the right moment? This resulted in War & Peace and Crime & Punishment.

I'm a historie totale guy myself (camp Tolstoi).

Reply to Benkei :up:

The only problem with Dostoevsky is that the characters in his major works are always in the wrong place at the wrong moment. :lol:

deleted it because I didn't mean to post it.

Quoting AmadeusD

I understand what you're getting at, but that category is far too broad to have a name. What aspect of 'beyond our comprehension' are you pointing to? Anything beyond our comprehension? Seems a bit of a McGuffin. [/Quote] That is perfect. Isn't there an argument for not having a name for the God of Abraham? The word "god" is generic, isn't it? The idea that God is beyond our comprehension is not mine. I think the God of Abraham religions deal with the problem of creating a god in our own image. The problem is a personal god meets our human needs better than a force that is not made in our image.

We must stay awake to learn the logos, the reason why things are as they are and can we change this or not
— Athena

Isn't this the entire thrust of philosophical thinking? What's the special occasion in this case? [/quote]

:up: Absolutely, this is the thrust of philosophical thinking and why I keep mentioning logos, reason, the controlling force of the universe. There are no temples built to logos, but the pagan temples were places of learning. Math was important to our ability to grasp reality in these pagan temples that were destroyed by Christians. Unfortunately, that is not common knowledge.

I truly, seriously do not think there is anything to support this position.

Could you please present me with unbiased, peer-reviewed work that shows that 'chi' is real? Having been ensconced in new-age groups and thinking for a decade or more, I did look into Qi very deeply because i 'bought' it at the time. It seems to me there is literally nothing, anywhere at all, that can be trusted to legitimate that concept. Would be very much open to something which shows - without ideological investment - something reasonable about it. While I'm, not able to run the video right now (at work) from what I know of him, Jesse Enkamp is a typical McDojo internet talking head with very little in the way of sensible takes. Have run in to him/his work around Jiu Jitsu many times over the last few years and its routinely been shown as nonsense designed to make money.

Okay, chi is just another word for energy, and that most certainly is worth arguing about. I think especially in the West ever since Rome and the fall of Athens, we totally fail to have a good concepts of energy. And from here I want to leap into Aztec explanations of energy and Michael S. Schneider's explanation of math. Not because I understand these points of view, but because I don't and some good arguments might resolve that problem.

Along with what is chi, what is harmonic resonance, rhythm, and organic balance? Math helps us understand such things, and then we get logos an understanding of cause and effect. Do I know what I am talking about? Heck no. I am embarrassingly ignorant but grade schools never opened my mind to such knowledge, and when I got to college, the only education my father wanted me to have was home economics. It was his son who was encouraged to study engineering. But I love Einstien's comment about how important imagination is. I read of these things I do not understand and I get as excited as a child full of wonderment.

The American Medical Association accepts acupuncture as a legitimate medical practice. Science has proven it is a second path of energy that is expressed in pain.

Quoting Mayoclinic

Traditional Chinese medicine explains acupuncture as a technique for balancing the flow of energy or life force — known as chi or qi (chee) — believed to flow through pathways (meridians) in your body.

What is meridians?

Oxford languages:a circle of constant longitude passing through a given place on the earth's surface and the terrestrial poles.
"the European Broadcasting Area extends from the Atlantic to the meridian 40°E"
2.
(in acupuncture and Chinese medicine) each of a set of pathways in the body along which vital energy is said to flow. There are twelve such pathways associated with specific organs.
"the slow movements and postures of t'ai chi open up and align the meridians of the body"

There is a lot to think about. Do you want to go there?

Quoting Benkei

Did you know Tolstoi and Dostoyevsky had an entire discussion about whether great men were great or simply people at the right time at the right moment? This resulted in War & Peace and Crime & Punishment.

I'm a historie totale guy myself (camp Tolstoi).

No, I did not know that and I do not care. Threads are great in the beginning and then they wander all over the place and die. People stop posting and the thread disappears in the past. Bringing it back from the past does not return it to the vitality it had.

Threads are fun as long as we are participating. Old threads are already done and those who were interested have lost interest in the thread. What fun is it to add something to an old thread?

Quoting javi2541997

The only problem with Dostoevsky is that the characters in his major works are always in the wrong place at the wrong moment.

That doesn't sound like fun. But it is an interesting approach to writing a story. Making the circumstances the protagonist instead of a person. I like that idea very much.

Hey :) Thanks for coming back!

Quoting Athena

That is perfect. Isn't there an argument for not having a name for the God of Abraham? The word "god" is generic, isn't it? The idea that God is beyond our comprehension is not mine. I think the God of Abraham religions deal with the problem of creating a god in our own image. The problem is a personal god meets our human needs better than a force that is not made in our image.

The Tetragrammaton. YHWH. Definitely discussions/disagreements around that particular thing - but it doesn't touch what i'm trying to ask. How could you conceptulise something beyond comprehension? If that's the definition of a God, it's necessarily useless.

Absolutely agreed, on the reason for that, though. I think the conceptions of God used throughout religions are necessarily formulaic in that they must meet some image parity, or else be redundant for the above reason.

Quoting Athena

logos, reason, the controlling force of the universe.

I don't know how these three are related, other than in a bit of esoteric thinking. What's the controlling force of the Universe in your view? Reason?

Quoting Athena

Okay, chi isjust another word for energy

(to the underlined): To my understanding, it is clear that: absolutely not. Qi is conceptualised as a substance which makes up the practical notion of the body in TCM, and functions in supernatural ways. It's understood as a basic, all-defining mechanism of the body which can cause or cure disease, allows for motion, and is the psychologically-motivating life-force in humans. It is definitely not analogous with Western (or even Middle Eastern) concepts of energy. I think it is very misleading to assess it as 'just another word for energy". It is closer to a wide-ranging use of hte Western term 'consciousness' with less strict limitations in action.

Quoting Athena

Not because I understand these points of view, but because I don't and some good arguments might resolve that problem.

I would suggest that if you don't understand a point of view, no argument will be truly relevant - but it can be a lot of fun!

Quoting Athena

Along with what is chi, what is harmonic resonance, rhythm, and organic balance? Math helps us understand such things, and then we get logos an understanding of cause and effect.

I don't think these are coherent leaps in discussion. I'm unsure how any of the following three items relate enough to Qi to be relevant as "Along with..".
Are you speaking about Logos as the Christian notion, or some other concept? In the former light, it seems a little weird to speak about in conjunction with Eastern, supernatural concepts.

Quoting Athena

the only education my father wanted me to have was home economics

Absolute bollocks, and I'm sorry that was the case.

Quoting Athena

Do you want to go there?

Sure. The quotes don't support your contention. Those quotes shows that the AMA accepts that TMC practictioners merely believe that those things are the case (i.e that Qi exists, acupuncture deals in it, etc..). The claims are all hedged in the language of the claim, and nothing there suggests the MA thinks Acupucture, or meridians, are legitimate medical practices. Even integrative health doesn't take it.. that.. seriously:
https://www.nccih.nih.gov/health/acupuncture-what-you-need-to-know#:~:text=There%20is%20evidence%20that%20acupuncture,shown%20to%20improve%20lung%20function.

Reducing pain can be physically understood as an externality of the practice, unrelated to the spiritual aspect supposed to be inherent in acupuncture (from a TCM perspective). Just as aligning hte spine can be nice and very helpful for eg Athletes, it wont cure a disease (the analogy being chiropractic).

Quoting AmadeusD

The Tetragrammaton. YHWH. Definitely discussions/disagreements around that particular thing - but it doesn't touch what i'm trying to ask. How could you conceptulise something beyond comprehension? If that's the definition of a God, it's necessarily useless.

It is fascinating to me how our minds grab onto something and that something becomes essential to our thinking, while millions of other possible thoughts have no effect on us. Long ago I read an old book about logic and I was grabbed by the thought we can never know enough to be totally sure of what we think we know. No matter how strongly we believe our thought is the correct one, we must always hold open the possibility that we could be wrong. For me, that is a God beyond comprehension. There is nothing about a god that makes this so, but it is about the limits of our minds. Our minds are not capable of knowing all that could be known. The purpose is to keep ourselves humble and preferably out of holy wars.

Absolutely agreed, on the reason for that, though. I think the conceptions of God used throughout religions are necessarily formulaic in that they must meet some image parity, or else be redundant for the above reason.

I take issue with ideas/definitions of God, because the God of Abraham is so different from any other notion of a god. To me it is pretty obvious, as we name new physics particles, the ancients named new gods when they became aware of a useful concept. Each god represents a limited concept. That far different from one god associated with demons and miracles. When the ancients had many gods, they could argue with each other and develop the consciousness of all things. Where can you go with one god? One god giving people rules leaves our consciousness undeveloped. The God of Abraham thinking annoys me so badly because it makes people so narrow-minded. Even when they do not believe in the reality of that God, the religion is so powerful, that any mention of God is assumed to be a god just like the God of Abraham. That notion of God has closed people's minds to anything else.

"logos, reason, the controlling force of the universe.
— Athena"

I don't know how these three are related, other than in a bit of esoteric thinking. What's the controlling force of the Universe in your view? Reason?

I do not know enough about physics to answer your question. Somehow there was an energy and that energy became manifest. This is the kind of thinking that goes with understanding the controlling force of the universe...

Wikipedia:What were the first gasses in the universe?
These were mainly helium and hydrogen, which are still by far the most abundant elements in the universe.

The early universe | CERN

How did those gasses lead to the manifest universe? The laws of physics are the controlling force. This law regarding gasses is the reason for gas being as it is.

Wikipedia:What was the first gas law?
Boyle's Law - Definition, Equation, & Facts with Examples
Boyle's law is a gas law given by the Anglo-Irish chemist Robert Boyle in 1662. He stated that the pressure exerted by a gas is inversely proportional to the volume occupied by it at a constant mass and temperature.

All of that is logos, reason, the controlling force of the universe and because our minds can discover the way of logos, we can be as the gods and because we can be as the gods, we can have democracy that is rule by reason, not rule by an absolute god or God chosen authority over the people. This belief system is not compatible with Christianity.

"Okay, chi is just another word for energy
— Athena"

(to the underlined): To my understanding, it is clear that: absolutely not. Qi is conceptualised as a substance which makes up the practical notion of the body in TCM, and functions in supernatural ways. It's understood as a basic, all-defining mechanism of the body which can cause or cure disease, allows for motion, and is the psychologically-motivating life-force in humans. It is definitely not analogous with Western (or even Middle Eastern) concepts of energy. I think it is very misleading to assess it as 'just another word for energy". It is closer to a wide-ranging use of the Western term 'consciousness' with less strict limitations in action.

:lol: Please let me share my merriment with you. I laughed because your comment tickled me. What is supernatural about chi? Is electricity conscious? How about the energy that moves clouds? What of the energy that makes our hearts beat? Is there consciousness with all forms of energy?

Here is a statement about chi.

Quoting Irving Yee

Electricity is required for your nervous system to send signals throughout your body and to your brain, making it possible for you to move, feel, and think.

When speaking of energy, it might help to have an understanding of mitochondria. Mitochondria is its own organism and they are essential to our lives.

Quoting Dr Steven Zuryn

These energy slaves are the mitochondria, and there are hundreds or even thousands of them inside every one of your cells (with the exception of red blood cells) and in every other human alive. They still resemble their bacterial origin in appearance, but we can no longer exist without them, nor they without us.

There is connection with mitochondria and our breath that is also related to chi.

Quoting Br J Dermatol.

The classic role of mitochondria is oxidative phosphorylation, which generates ATP by utilizing the energy released during the oxidation of the food we eat. ATP is used in turn as the primary energy source for most biochemical and physiological processes, such as growth, movement and homeostasis. We turn over approximately our own body weight in ATP each day, and almost all of this is generated by mitochondria, primarily within muscle, brain, liver, heart and gastrointestinal tract.5 The pre-eminent role of eating is to provide the fuel for mitochondria, and the pre-eminent role of breathing is to provide the oxygen and to remove the carbon dioxide produced during oxidative phosphorylation by mitochondria. Similarly, a major role of the cardiovascular system is to deliver the substrates (glucose, fatty acids, oxygen) and remove the products (carbon dioxide) of mitochondrial activity.

I am separating your comments so the thoughts aren't so complicated they are useless.

Quoting AmadeusD

Not because I understand these points of view, but because I don't and some good arguments might resolve that problem.
— Athena

I would suggest that if you don't understand a point of view, no argument will be truly relevant - but it can be a lot of fun!

Yes, fun! :grin:

Along with what is chi, what is harmonic resonance, rhythm, and organic balance? Math helps us understand such things, and then we get logos an understanding of cause and effect.
— Athena

I don't think these are coherent leaps in discussion. I'm unsure how any of the following three items relate enough to Qi to be relevant

The object is to understand energy and all 3 words are about energy. If our heart is out of rhythm, we are in deep trouble. Agree? What keeps our heart in rhythm? Damn, asking Google what keeps our heart in rhythm gets links to drugs, not an explanation of how nature works, but here is a related answer...

Quoting Harvard

Listening to music may boost exercise ability, ease stress and anxiety, and enhance recovery from strokes.

Some people may think that is a spiritual explanation. Now the problem is, how do we understand spirit. Does that mean angels and demons, or our mood, we are high-spirited or low-spirited, happy or sad?

Music can heal and that is about harmony, rhythm, and resonance. Can you now see these things as related to music and healing? My thinking is influenced by Jose Arguelles's explanation of Pulsation-rays explained in his book The Mayan Factor, Path Beyond Technology. That book is totally rejected by the science community and that is understandable, but I think we have something to gain by considering these different expressions of energy.

Are you speaking about Logos as the Christian notion, or some other concept? In the former light, it seems a little weird to speak about in conjunction with Eastern, supernatural concepts.

Logos is a Greek concept, along with the notion of a God having 3 aspects, making the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost one god, not 3 gods. Christianity is Hellenized Judaism. The concept of logos is Greek, not Hebrew.

The only education my father wanted me to have was home economics
— Athena

Absolute bollocks, and I'm sorry that was the case.

I am not totally opposed to women putting family first because so much good can come out of that, but both the man and woman need to agree what is best for the family. I assumed way too much and made a bad choice. But I want to defend the good of a man supporting the family financially while the woman supports the family emotionally and socially in many very important ways. Especially today when we live so long and can do both raise a family and have a career. My plan was to return to college, get a degree, and then have a career but I didn't begin my marriage with a discussion of such things. As I said, I assumed too much.

Do you want to go there?
— Athena

Sure. The quotes don't support your contention. Those quotes shows that the AMA accepts that TMC practictioners merely believe that those things are the case (i.e that Qi exists, acupuncture deals in it, etc..). The claims are all hedged in the language of the claim, and nothing there suggests the AMA thinks Acupucture, or meridians, are legitimate medical practices. Even integrative health doesn't take it.. that.. seriously:
https://www.nccih.nih.gov/health/acupuncture-what-you-need-to-know#:~:text=There%20is%20evidence%20that%20acupuncture,shown%20to%20improve%20lung%20function.

I am confused. You say the quotes don't support the benefit of acupuncture and then post a link that does. "In addition to pain conditions, acupuncture has also been studied for at least 50 other health problems. There is evidence that acupuncture may help relieve seasonal allergy symptoms, stress incontinence in women, and nausea and vomiting associated with cancer treatment. It may also help relieve symptoms and improve the quality of life in people with asthma, but it has not been shown to improve lung function."

I will add this to what your link ....
Quoting Yonsei Med J.

What is the success rate of acupuncture to quit smoking?
According to Ballal et al.,14 performing smoking cessation acupuncture for six weeks produced a smoking cessation rate of 50.1%, 45.5% of the subjects reduced their consumption to 5 cigarettes and 4.3% failed to reduce smoking.
The Effects of the Acupuncture Treatment for Smoking Cessation in ...

Something is happening and because this is proven insurance now pays for acupuncture treatments.

Reducing pain can be physically understood as an externality of the practice, unrelated to the spiritual aspect supposed to be inherent in acupuncture (from a TCM perspective). Just as aligning the spine can be nice and very helpful for eg Athletes, it wont cure a disease (the analogy being chiropractic).

I do not understand why you speak of "the spiritual aspect"? What do you mean by spiritual? Is this in line with believing in angels and demons? There seems to be a gap between my consideration of energy and your consideration of the spiritual realm. Whatever, I have spent half the day reading your post and looking for better explanations and it has been fun. :grin: This is a whole lot better than talking with neighbors about the current gossip. Thank the powers that be for the internet and stimulating discussions.

Quoting Athena

Our minds are not capable of knowing all that could be known

Then what is capable of knowing things our minds are not able to know? It seems to me this is a bit backwards - If we can't know it, how can it be knowable?

Quoting Athena

For me, that is a God beyond comprehension.

I just can't understand why you're invoking 'God' as a gap-filler in your knowledge. It seems to illustrate the very basic misstep almost all religious thinking requires. "I don't know, therefore God". I understand you don't ascribe (from what i can tell) any Abrahamic notion of God, to that issue but you're using it as a proper noun so its hard to ignore :P

Quoting Athena

The purpose is to keep ourselves humble and preferably out of holy wars.

The purpose of what?

Quoting Athena

That notion of God has closed people's minds to anything else.

Then what, in your view, is the use of the term? It seems that the Ancients as you're positing, were extremely misguided in their use of the concepts they pretended to. Calling the Sun a personal God is... wild... which is what Apollo is, essentially.

Quoting Athena

I do not know enough about physics to answer your question. Somehow there was an energy and that energy became manifest. This is the kind of thinking that goes with understanding the controlling force of the universe...

Huh. Fair enough. This appears to be magical thinking to me and is logically followed by "in the beginning there was the word, and the word was made flesh' type of stuff. Not my bag.

Quoting Athena

How did those gasses lead to the manifest universe?

They didn't. They are included in the manifest universe, not prior to it. So, i think this and the next response are a bit out of step with reality, to my mind.

Quoting Athena

What is supernatural about chi?

The entire concept is beyond natural laws. It is posited, as i've noted, that Qi carries multiple supernatural properties and exerts its force, supernaturally, upon the body and mind. I've outlined that, and your quotes don't approach those outlines. Quoting Athena

There is connection with mitochondria and our breath that is also related to chi.

I cannot see any connection between any of these things in your comments and quotes, so i'll leave that part - I reject the notion still, though.

Quoting Athena

What keeps our heart in rhythm?

Its own electronic impulse - the cardiac conduction system. It is separate from the rest of the body's electric system as far as I know.

Quoting Athena

Some people may think that is a spiritual explanation.

They would be mistaken. Music's ability to 'heal' is squarely psychological, as opposed to medical (though, I agree both are essentially physical issues). It does not have any effect on specific functions of cells or healing properties of the body itself. It is like rest increasing your ability to heal..

Quoting Athena

Logos is a Greek concept, along with the notion of a God having 3 aspects, making the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost one god, not 3 gods. Christianity is Hellenized Judaism. The concept of logos is Greek, not Hebrew.

This doesn't answer either part of my question - but ftr, I am aware. I did not posit it was anything else.

Quoting Athena

But I want to defend the good of a man supporting the family financially while the woman supports the family emotionally and socially in many very important ways.

Agreed. my family works this way. But the idea that your dad actively discouraged you from education is wildly shitty to my mind.

Quoting Athena

then post a link that does

No. That is not what this link does. I does what I outlined immediately before posting it, funnily enough.

Quoting Athena

There is evidence that acupuncture may

Whenever you read this, the fact is there's no evidence. It just hasn't harmed anyone. Quoting Yonsei Med J.

What is the success rate of acupuncture to quit smoking?

This quote contradicts itself. Reducing your smoking rate isn't quitting so they've counted people who didn't quit in their 'quit' number. Other thing to note is that expectation bias accounts for most results in open studies of that kind. Placebo-contrlled double blind is the standard here. It would also have been helpful to cite more than a weakly-supportive line. See further:

"Several researchers have conducted case control studies on smoking cessation acupuncture. He et al.19 reported that acupuncture treatment showed significant effectiveness in a case-control study, but most other researchers, including Parker et al.20 and Steiner et al.,21 reported that there was no apparent difference between the control and acupuncture treatment groups."

"Results of a meta-analysis of controlled trials were also negative.23"

"In this study, the smoking cessation success was only 1 case (0.6%) in the case group and none in the control group after 4 weeks."

"While the samples in this study could not be generalized because the subjects were limited in a certain area, this study suggests that smoking cessation acupuncture has no effect on the smoking cessation rate."

That's why placebo-control is so important. This paper is mostly outlining how bad the methodology is that has garnered positive outcomes. I have a feeling its possible you're not quite delving deep enough to make the types of claims you're making.

Quoting Athena

Something is happening and because this is proven insurance now pays for acupuncture treatments.

This is the result of pressure groups, not veracity, as shown above.

Quoting Athena

I do not understand why you speak of "the spiritual aspect"? What do you mean by spiritual? Is this in line with believing in angels and demons?

I am speaking directly about TCM. Consult TCM outlets for their take on it. I am using their terminology. I can't quite make sense of some of your questions. They seem to come from a genuine, but very much defensive place not quite in touch with teh subject matter. But I'm having fun..

Quoting Athena

There seems to be a gap between my consideration of energy and your consideration of the spiritual realm.

I don't know why you'd say this or what relevance it has. I've never tried to parallel them or outline my 'consideration'. Of course theres a gap between them - they are not related.

You seem to talk about the concepts you want to talk about regardless of the conversation. It makes it difficult to understand whether you understand what I'm saying. It appears not, a lot of the time.

Quoting AmadeusD

Then what is capable of knowing things our minds are not able to know? It seems to me this is a bit backwards - If we can't know it, how can it be knowable?

Even if you are brain surgeon, there is a lot you do not know. We rely on the experts and what each of them knows is very limited. Our brains are very limited when it comes to knowing a lot. That is a lot is not very much, but if we want we can google for information and maybe we will learn something or maybe not. Sometimes we put a whole team of people onto the task of learning something, like how to get to the moon. Or think historically before there was science. Not even the smartest people could know what we know today.

I just can't understand why you're invoking 'God' as a gap-filler in your knowledge. It seems to illustrate the very basic misstep almost all religious thinking requires. "I don't know, therefore God". I understand you don't ascribe (from what i can tell) any Abrahamic notion of God, to that issue but you're using it as a proper noun so its hard to ignore :P

Until you understand how little we can know, it might pointless to argue what is beyond our comprehension.

The purpose of what?

The purpose of accepting how very little we know.

"That notion of God has closed people's minds to anything else.
— Athena"

[quote] Then what, in your view, is the use of the term? It seems that the Ancients as you're positing, were extremely misguided in their use of the concepts they pretended to. Calling the Sun a personal God is... wild... which is what Apollo is, essentially.

If you think you know God, you know not God. You wrongly think you know God and this is why we should not name Him or make images of Him. We should stop deluding ourselves with the notion we know God.

"I do not know enough about physics to answer your question. Somehow there was an energy and that energy became manifest. This is the kind of thinking that goes with understanding the controlling force of the universe...
— Athena"

Huh. Fair enough. This appears to be magical thinking to me and is logically followed by "in the beginning there was the word, and the word was made flesh' type of stuff. Not my bag.

Scientific explanations of the beginning of the universe sound magical to you why? Logos is about empirical knowledge, not magic. You have me very confused. Is there any information that is not magical to you? I think you giving a good demonstration of the problem religion has caused.

How did those gasses lead to the manifest universe?
— Athena

They didn't. They are included in the manifest universe, not prior to it. So, i think this and the next response are a bit out of step with reality, to my mind.

I did not say those gases existed before the universe was manifested. It was manifested in an order and became increasingly complex.

What is supernatural about chi?
— Athena

The entire concept is beyond natural laws. It is posited, as i've noted, that Qi carries multiple supernatural properties and exerts its force, supernaturally, upon the body and mind. I've outlined that, and your quotes don't approach those outlines.[quote] You will have to explain those supernatural properties before I can respond to what you are thinking. However this morning in the pool I was pondering why you are so resistant to the notion of Chi. How can you imagine a nervous system that connects the body with the brain and not Chi? What makes it different?


[quote]There is connection with mitochondria and our breath that is also related to chi.
— Athena

I cannot see any connection between any of these things in your comments and quotes, so i'll leave that part - I reject the notion still, though. [/qoute] Yes it is obvious you are not getting what I am saying and I am not getting what you are saying.

[quote]What keeps our heart in rhythm?
— Athena

Its own electronic impulse - the cardiac conduction system. It is separate from the rest of the body's electric system as far as I know.

Some people may think that is a spiritual explanation.
— Athena

They would be mistaken. Music's ability to 'heal' is squarely psychological, as opposed to medical (though, I agree both are essentially physical issues). It does not have any effect on specific functions of cells or healing properties of the body itself. It is like rest increasing your ability to heal..

I have to hurry this along as I have to get to work. From my point of view you are not thinking anything through. I wish I had more time. This link is about music affecting the growth of plants. https://www.google.com/search?q=music+effects+the+growth+of+plants&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS926US926&oq=music+effects+the+growth+of+plants&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIICAEQABgWGB4yCAgCEAAYFhgeMgoIAxAAGA8YFhgeMggIBBAAGBYYHjINCAUQABiGAxiABBiKBdIBCjExMDE5ajBqMTWoAgCwAgA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Logos is a Greek concept, along with the notion of a God having 3 aspects, making the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost one god, not 3 gods. Christianity is Hellenized Judaism. The concept of logos is Greek, not Hebrew.
— Athena

This doesn't answer either part of my question - but ftr, I am aware. I did not posit it was anything else.

But I want to defend the good of a man supporting the family financially while the woman supports the family emotionally and socially in many very important ways.
— Athena

Agreed. my family works this way. But the idea that your dad actively discouraged you from education is wildly shitty to my mind.

then post a link that does
— Athena

No. That is not what this link does. I does what I outlined immediately before posting it, funnily enough.

There is evidence that acupuncture may
— Athena

Whenever you read this, the fact is there's no evidence. It just hasn't harmed anyone.
What is the success rate of acupuncture to quit smoking? — Yonsei Med J. [/quote]
That was made perfectly clear and the demonstrations of Chi are very real. I think it may be time to quit.
You can not understand anything if you are unwilling to do the thinking. Denying what is scientifically accepted such as proof of acupuncture brings us to a dead end.

Reply to AmadeusD You are right my focus became my own interest. I want to thank you for arguing against chi because that has pushed me to give chi, and energy in general, much more thought than I have given any of this stuff for many years. This feels like a return to youth when life felt much more interesting than it has felt in many years.

A fellow who uses the hot tub the same time I do, said we can become aware of our chi by cupping our hands as if we are holding a ball. In the past, that was obvious to me as I could feel the energy. Today I tried to feel that energy and it isn't there, which would make sense as I am having some health problems. My next thought is to get an aura reading to determine where my aura is weak and strong. Which falls back on our argument about chi. So now I am considering buying my own imaging equipment and eperimenting with it. Is it all hogwash or can aura imaging be another way to be aware of our chi and where it is flowing in a healthy way or where it is blocked and not flowing?

Does acupuncture change the aura? How about deep breathing and other health practices? Does music change the aura? If we can see change we can know something has caused the change.

If nothing else this could make an interesting youtube. Everyone can witness the experiments and give me feedback about what they think. Just hogwash or something to take seriously.

Quoting AmadeusD

The entire concept is beyond natural laws. It is posited, as i've noted, that Qi carries multiple supernatural properties and exerts its force, supernaturally, upon the body and mind. I've outlined that, and your quotes don't approach those outlines.

Can you direct me to that outline of what is supernatural about chi? To me what you said in the above quote, is like saying gravity has supernatural properties. Chi is simply a life force energy. That life force may be mitochondria.

"We now know that eukaryotes can live happily without any remnant of the mitochondria." Mitochondria are the descendants of bacteria that settled down inside primordial eukaryotic cells, eventually becoming the power plants for their new hosts."
https://www.science.org/content/article/first-eukaryotes-found-without-normal-cellular-power-supply#:~:text=%22We%20now%20know%20that%20eukaryotes,plants%20for%20their%20new%20hosts.

My line of reasoning is cause and effect, not supernatural.

Quoting Athena

Logos is a Greek concept, along with the notion of a God having 3 aspects, making the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost one god, not 3 gods. Christianity is Hellenized Judaism. The concept of logos is Greek, not Hebrew.
— Athena

This doesn't answer either part of my question - but ftr, I am aware. I did not posit it was anything else.

I do not understand why that does not answer your question. You posted.

Are you speaking about Logos as the Christian notion, or some other concept? In the former light, it seems a little weird to speak about in conjunction with Eastern, supernatural concepts.

Your question was

I don't know how these three are related, other than in a bit of esoteric thinking. What's the controlling force of the Universe in your view? Reason?

Logos, reason, and the controlling force of the universe are 3 aspects of the same thing, the same as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three aspects of the same thing. That is Greek thinking and it did not work for Romans until they created new words to convey the Greek idea of a trinity. "Triad is the form of the completion of all things." Nichomachus of Gerasa (c. 100 A.D. Greek neo-Pythagorean philosopher and mathematician.

Quoting Athena

Even if you are brain surgeon, there is a lot you do not know. We rely on the experts and what each of them knows is very limited. Our brains are very limited when it comes to knowing a lot. That is a lot is not very much, but if we want we can google for information and maybe we will learn something or maybe not. Sometimes we put a whole team of people onto the task of learning something, like how to get to the moon. Or think historically before there was science. Not even the smartest people could know what we know today.

You're not really reading what i'm asking here, it seems.

I have asked you, if something is unknowable, how could you possibly learn it? It is impossible, was my point. I wondered how you dealt with it. You didn't :P

Quoting Athena

Until you understand how little we can know, it might pointless to argue what is beyond our comprehension.

This makes absolutely no sense. No one would ever, in their right mind, attempt to debate something incomprehensible. What I am trying to ask is why are you talking about hte possibility of knowing things which are, by your use of hte words, impossible to know? Seems like a pointless starting block to a pointless exercise in mystic thinking (nothing wrong with that, but it's not philosophy imo).

Quoting Athena

If you think you know God, you know not God. You wrongly think you know God and this is why we should not name Him or make images of Him. We should stop deluding ourselves with the notion we know God.

This is, again, an absolutely pointless statement designed to sidestep the incredible holes in previous statements. You can't make statements about Gods (for which we have all the receipts) and then pretend its some mystical concept that can't be talked about. Bit of a tautological way of ducking out..

Quoting Athena

Scientific explanations of the beginning of the universe sound magical to you why? Logos is about empirical knowledge, not magic. You have me very confused. Is there any information that is not magical to you? I think you giving a good demonstration of the problem religion has caused.

I think its possible you aren't really parsing the sentences you're reading very well. Nothing you've said here responds to what i've said in any reasonable way. That said, I disagree with everything in this passage and have no clue why you'd think my rejection of an explicitly Christian concept (Logos, as I noted, exists as a Christian concept - and that's what I asked you about and quoted in the above.... The fact that you then didn't respond to that is not going to deter me. It's what I asked about) has anything whatsoever to do with empirical anything - particularly at the birth of the universe - is quite strange given you're bothering to try to converse on these exact topics.

Quoting Athena

I did not say those gases existed before the universe was manifested.

Quoting Athena

How did those gasses lead to

Yes you did. Whether that was on purpose or not. This is kind of why I'm pushing back - you seem to contradict yourself quite a lot and I just want clear thoughts to be able to respond to. If you're not on that vibe, no worries. It may well just be that these are early formulations of your thoughts on these topics. That's fine too. Just wanting to be clear that I am not doing those two things, and that might be a bit of daylight between us. We're trying to do different things, it seems.

You will have to explain those supernatural properties before I can respond to what you are thinking. However this morning in the pool I was pondering why you are so resistant to the notion of Chi. How can you imagine a nervous system that connects the body with the brain and not Chi? What makes it different?

No, I wont, because they are not things I have come up with or supported. These are tenets of TCM practice and Qi as a concept. Have a two-minute read of this most basic explication of Qi. I quote from it:

"Qi is a mythical concept in traditional Chinese medicine and in Chinese martial arts."

"The Chinese Gods, especially anthropomorphic gods, are sometimes thought to have qi and be a reflection of the microcosm of qi in humans, both having qi that can concentrate in certain body parts."

We are operating in different dimensions if you do not read the above as Supernatural. I don't think its worthy continuing about Qi if you do not understand its most basic properties and bases for belief in it.

Yes it is obvious you are not getting what I am saying and I am not getting what you are saying.

This is not at all obvious, Athena. But that's why I left it there. It'll get prickly. No one likes to be told they are flat-out ignoring hte most crucial parts of an exchange.

Quoting Athena

I have to hurry this along as I have to get to work. From my point of view you are not thinking anything through.

The problem is, your point of view is clearly under-educated on these specific fields of enquiry and not partial to being confront with opposing evidence or concepts. A large swathe of what you're positing throughout this fairly varied exchange is illogical, internally inconsistent, historically inaccurate and incoherent. I find it quite hard to take your positions here seriously, in light of that. Cest la vie.

Quoting Athena

That was made perfectly clear and the demonstrations of Chi are very real.

They are not. You have provided no evidence for such, and more than a century of empirical research has provided absolutely nothing to substantiate the claims around Qi. I am not on the wrong side of this one, unless you're claiming that your faith in this concept is evidence. If that's the case, it is definitely time to quit.

Quoting Athena

You can not understand anything if you are unwilling to do the thinking. Denying what is scientifically accepted such as proof of acupuncture brings us to a dead end.

You are empirically wrong. I quoted from the link you provided squarely dismissing hte misleading and false inference you tried to make. I'm not going to play this game - you were factually wrong and didn't even read the study you provided. Your response is to claim that i'm somehow ignorant of 'the facts'. Bizarre.

Quoting Athena

My next thought is to get an aura reading to determine where my aura is weak and strong.

It is possible we have absolutely nothing more to discuss.

Quoting Athena

Can you direct me to that outline of what is supernatural about chi? To me what you said in the above quote, is like saying gravity has supernatural properties. Chi is simply a life force energy. That life force may be mitochondria.

This is absolutely not what Qi relates to at all, in any way, unless you're just making stuff up and claiming its Qi. The absolutely fact is that in TCM and Chinese Martial Arts Qi is a supernatural manifesting force. Rationalizing it into some medical explanation is just plainly stealing a Chinese concept and messing with it.

Quoting Athena

My line of reasoning is cause and effect, not supernatural.

That link has nothing to do with the disagreement we're having.

While I thank you for your time, I find you to be an obtuse and uninteresting interlocutor at this stage. Take care Athena :)

Quoting AmadeusD

This makes absolutely no sense. No one would ever, in their right mind, attempt to debate something incomprehensible. What I am trying to ask is why are you talking about hte possibility of knowing things which are, by your use of hte words, impossible to know? Seems like a pointless starting block to a pointless exercise in mystic thinking (nothing wrong with that, but it's not philosophy imo).

I would appreciate the quote you are objecting to because, worded as you worded what I said things don't make sense. I am quite sure I have repeatedly said our brains are limited. What we can know is limited by the fact that our brains are limited. You may use your brain to study brain surgery and that will not make you a good mechanic. We can expand the number of people in a pool of shared knowledge and still there is limit to what these people know. What group of people do you think have the most knowledge?

In 1600, what the most intelligent people on earth could have known, was extremely limited compared to what we know today. In 1600 they did not have the technology that we use for gathering information.
Also, the more we know the more we can know.

I don't think I ever said anything was impossible to know. I have spoken of the limits of what we can know, not something that we can not know. With a good microscope, we can know much more about microscopic things we could learn before the microscope. With our satellites traveling the universe we can learn far more today than we could a hundred years ago. Finally, what man on earth can know everything? What group of people can know everything?

Quoting AmadeusD

I have asked you, if something is unknowable, how could you possibly learn it? It is impossible, was my point. I wondered how you dealt with it. You didn't :P

Where did I say something is unknowable?

Quoting AmadeusD

We are operating in different dimensions if you do not read the above as Supernatural. I don't think its worthy continuing about Qi if you do not understand its most basic properties and bases for belief in it.

That is a perfect way to explain my frustration. You do not understand its most basic properties and bases for belief in it and you reject the modern acceptance of Chi.

Here is a modern explanation of acupuncture https://restorewellness.com.au/2016/05/1387/\\

Rejection of it as wrong as rejecting today's earth sciences because native Americans explained the earth needs our care. Science has proven them correct. The earth is a large living organization and disrupting one part of it affects another part.

The explanations have changed but the truth has not. And we don't think of Christians as being superstitious like other natives, but the religion is built on miracles and laying hands on someone to heal a person. These folks are working with Chi but that is not the word they use.

Reply to Athena You seem to be entirely resistant to sense, empirical data and being confronted with the incredibly obvious failings in your writing. I do not mean to be rude, but it has become impossible not to be on-the-nose about how utterly bereft of coherence your side of this exchange has been.

I do not know why you are doing this. You have been presented with detailed, exact (with receipts) evidence to the contrary of your claims* - and you're continuing to essentially:

1. Lie about acupuncture* and Qi;
2. Make up new points that don't related to our actual discussion and pretend they are relevant***;
3. Continually posit empirical false claims, in the face of contrary evidence, and pretend to be tryign to be 'open minded'.
4. Provide links that are not in any way helpful. The most recent being an inaccurate and dishonest overview of work done in Korea, and a massaging terms to make it seem, extremely dishonestly, as if there is some support for supernatural crap from cultures(meaning ancient) that do not understand how to overcome bad practice and Mysticism, with no references or links to anything in support of it.

If you take 'evidence' be purely some horse crap posted on a website selling shit to you, I can only laugh and hope you get over your extremely deficiency in credulity.

*your own link directly contradicted the incredibly dishonest quoting you did from it....
**in what delusional world do you live, where we do not consider Christians superstitious? Are you literally fucking with me?

Given that we're no longer discussing the original issue, It seems fairly reasonable for me to point these things out. These failings will make it impossible to have productive conversations with anyone who doesn't share your peculiar distortions of logic, evidence and grammar.

At least your avatar is very attractive.

Quoting Athena

Are we great because of a few great men such as Cyrus the Great, Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Nietzsche, George Washington, or Donald Trump or are we great because we are united and socialized so that together we can imagine and manifest great things?

I recall a similar thread from about the same time (or maybe I am confusing it with another website), and the replies were, reasonably, "both".

Reply to AmadeusD At least you came out of this with a compliment. It is better than whatever I have ever gotten here.

Reply to Lionino LMAO, yeah, and I'll take it.

But I did not come here to have my appearance assessed by anyone.

I had actually very, very much hoped Athena would engage some of the specifics i've highlighted in regard to ignoring the evidence from her own links. Seems clear enough to stimulate something. But there we go :)

I hope I edited correctly.

Quoting Lionino

I recall a similar thread from about the same time (or maybe I am confusing it with another website), and the replies were, reasonably, "both".

I think it is agreeable that both the leader and the followers manifest success or failure. Recently TV programs have focused on the racial struggle for justice. One program focused on the terrorism committed by Whites to keep those of color in their place. This terrorism successful prevented people of color from fighting for justice, until people from around the country supported the people of color in their efforts to get fair voting laws and justice. One of them publicly announced the error of not supporting the movement for fair voting laws and justice that effectively supported those who imposed the injustices on the people of color. That summer we had civil war and we saw changes but clearly we still live with the problems of racism.

Some of the most successful actions are taken by song writers and musicians and those who paint pictures and write books.

Right now the gay community has gained a lot of power within our institutions and I am opposed to this. I will defend the statement if anyone cares.

Higher wages is also a power shift. I am not sure this is a good thing. I can not understand how people's wages can increase without inflation. However, their power to get higher wages is curious to me. Why hasn't the working class always had this power? Is there a relationship between higher wages racism and power?

Reply to Athena I would appreciate if you edited this comment. You are quoting me saying something when I did not say it and have no clue who did.

Reply to Athena I don't know what you're trying to say, largely for the reason Lionino has highlighted.

Can you clarify the comment? However, if it's an attempt to say that my deduction (not accusation) that you are lying about the link you provided, because you do not know what it says, probably better leave it - that deduction is patently reasonable and would require your address, if you think it's untrue (that's how discussions work :) ). I was able to show clearly that you did not read your link, and have either lied or willfully ignored several of its statements, a long with a plethora of others empirically verifiable facts you have either ignored or lied about (the basis for Qi, for example).

If it was anything else, feel free to clarify.

Would be glad to come back on it, once it's clear what you're saying.